https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448653 The dominant issue was whether rejection of a refund claim for unutilised ITC on the ground that it must relate to a specific calendar month was legally sustainable. The HC held that the claim was within the statutory limitation under s.54 CGST Act, and that the appellate authority's calendar-month restriction was contrary to the Act, r.89 and Circular No.37; consequently, the impugned order was quashed. On the issue of substantive entitlement to refund, the HC held that eligibility must be determined on scrutiny of export and ITC records under the statutory scheme, which could not be conclusively undertaken in writ jurisdiction; accordingly, the matter was remanded to the proper authority for fresh determination. en-us Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448653 The dominant issue was whether rejection of a refund claim for unutilised ITC on the ground that it must relate to a specific calendar month was legally sustainable. The HC held that the claim was within the statutory limitation under s.54 CGST Act, and that the appellate authority's calendar-month restriction was contrary to the Act, r.89 and Circular No.37; consequently, the impugned order was quashed. On the issue of substantive entitlement to refund, the HC held that eligibility must be determined on scrutiny of export and ITC records under the statutory scheme, which could not be conclusively undertaken in writ jurisdiction; accordingly, the matter was remanded to the proper authority for fresh determination. Case-Laws GST Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448653