https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461287 Karnataka HC allowed petitioner's refund claim under Section 54(3) CGST Act for accumulated ITC due to inverted tax structure. Revenue rejected claim arguing petitioner's activity was construction service under Schedule II Entry 5(b), not works contract under Entry 6(a), and was excluded by Notification 20/2017. Court held contract with BMRCL was works contract under Entry 6(a), not construction service under Entry 5(b). Notification 15/2017 excluded only Entry 5(b) services, not Entry 6(a) works contracts. For claim period March 2018-July 2019, applicable Notification 1/2018 included metro works contracts. Court quashed impugned order and allowed refund claim. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2026 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461287 Karnataka HC allowed petitioner's refund claim under Section 54(3) CGST Act for accumulated ITC due to inverted tax structure. Revenue rejected claim arguing petitioner's activity was construction service under Schedule II Entry 5(b), not works contract under Entry 6(a), and was excluded by Notification 20/2017. Court held contract with BMRCL was works contract under Entry 6(a), not construction service under Entry 5(b). Notification 15/2017 excluded only Entry 5(b) services, not Entry 6(a) works contracts. For claim period March 2018-July 2019, applicable Notification 1/2018 included metro works contracts. Court quashed impugned order and allowed refund claim. Case-Laws GST Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461287