https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424518 HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner, a registered dealer supplying goods at a concessional rate, is entitled to refund of accumulated ITC under the inverted tax structure in terms of Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act. The court held that the circular dated 31.03.2020, which denied refund where input and output supplies are the same, is repugnant to and ultra vires the parent statute and cannot curtail the unambiguous statutory right to refund, particularly for the pre-circular period (September 2018 to September 2019). The earlier clarification dated 18.11.2019 was applied, and the revenue authorities were directed to grant the admissible ITC refund to the petitioner. en-us Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 14:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424518 HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner, a registered dealer supplying goods at a concessional rate, is entitled to refund of accumulated ITC under the inverted tax structure in terms of Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act. The court held that the circular dated 31.03.2020, which denied refund where input and output supplies are the same, is repugnant to and ultra vires the parent statute and cannot curtail the unambiguous statutory right to refund, particularly for the pre-circular period (September 2018 to September 2019). The earlier clarification dated 18.11.2019 was applied, and the revenue authorities were directed to grant the admissible ITC refund to the petitioner. Case-Laws GST Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424518