<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Refund Denied Under CGST Act: Credit is a Concession, Not a Right; Appeal Dismissed for Ineligibility.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82568</link>
    <description>Section 142(3) of the CGST Act 2017 is a provision for entertaining and allowing refund of credit, but the refund&#039;s eligibility and admissibility under existing law is the determining factor. The case of M/s NACL Industries Ltd. held that refund was not permissible in certain situations where it was otherwise not eligible under existing law. The Larger Bench decision of M/s Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt Ltd. dealt with the maintainability of such appeals before CESTAT, not the admissibility of refund u/s 142(3). The order of M/s Jagannath Polymers Pvt Ltd. allowed the appeal without addressing various orders on the interpretation of Section 142(3). Courts and Tribunals have held that credit is not a substantive right but a concession. The Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing the appeal had no infirmity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:10:06 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:10:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Refund Denied Under CGST Act: Credit is a Concession, Not a Right; Appeal Dismissed for Ineligibility.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82568</link>
      <description>Section 142(3) of the CGST Act 2017 is a provision for entertaining and allowing refund of credit, but the refund&#039;s eligibility and admissibility under existing law is the determining factor. The case of M/s NACL Industries Ltd. held that refund was not permissible in certain situations where it was otherwise not eligible under existing law. The Larger Bench decision of M/s Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt Ltd. dealt with the maintainability of such appeals before CESTAT, not the admissibility of refund u/s 142(3). The order of M/s Jagannath Polymers Pvt Ltd. allowed the appeal without addressing various orders on the interpretation of Section 142(3). Courts and Tribunals have held that credit is not a substantive right but a concession. The Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing the appeal had no infirmity.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:10:06 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>