TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RED-06 for the tax period March 2018 dated 08.10.2020 herein marked as Annexure-B1. iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ or certiorari quashing the refund rejection order passed by the Respondent No.2 rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner in Form GST-RFD-06 for the tax period April 2018 dated 08.10.2020 herein marked as Annexure - B2. iv) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ or certiorari quashing the refund rejection order passed by the Respondent No.2 rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner in Form GST-RFD-06 for the tax period May 2018 dated 20.10.2020 herein marked as Annexure - B3. v) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ or certiorari quashing the refund rejection order passed by the Respondent No.2 rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner in Form GST-RFD-06 for the tax period June 2018 dated 20.10.2020 herein marked as Annexure - B4. vi) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ or certiorari quashing the refund rejection order passed by the Respondent No.2 rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner in Form GST-RFD-0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct and stations) measuring approximately 28.11 kms in length. 4. The petitioner applied for refund under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act on account of Income Tax Credit (ITC) accumulated due to inverted tax structure for the period from March, 2018 to July, 2019, pursuant to which, the respondent No.2 issued Notices in Form RFD-08, to which, the petitioner submitted replies and the same culminated in the impugned refund rejection orders at Annexure-B1 to Annexure-B9 during the period 23.05.2020 to 13.11.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeals before the 1st respondent, who proceeded to pass the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 15.12.2022 dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent and 1st respondent, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. The details of the refund claimed by the petitioner for the aforesaid various tax periods are as under: Tax Period Amount in INR. March 2018 2,86,32,646 April 2018 3,17,83,628 May 2018 73,65,048 June 2018 4,06,75,767 August 2018 1,41,76,878 September 2018 2,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Central Excise and Customs vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd., - 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) brought out the difference between service contracts simpliciter and composite works contracts and held as under:- "24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services to in the charging Section 65 (105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65 (105) which defines " taxable service" as "any service provided". All the services referred to in the said sub-clauses are service contracts simpliciter without any other element in them, such as for example, a service contract which is a commissioning and installation, or erection, commissioning and installation contract. Further, under Section 67, as has been pointed out above, the values of a taxable service is the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. This would unmistakably show that what is referred to in the charging provision is the taxation of service contracts simpliciter and not composite works contracts, such as are contained on the facts of the present cases. It will al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.2017 on the ground that works contract relating to Metro and Monorail were excluded from refund claims; in this regard, the respondents failed to consider and appreciate that the said Notification No. 20/2017 was preceded by Notification No. 11/2017 dated 28.06.2017, which included works contract relating to Metro and even the said Notification No. 20/2017 was subsequently substituted vide Notification No. 1/2018 dated 25.01.2018 by including works contract relating to Metro; it is therefore clear that in the light of the undisputed fact that the refund claims of the petitioner related to the period from March 2018 onwards, it was the Notification No. 1/2018 which was applicable and the same undisputedly including works contract relating to Metro also and since the aforesaid Notification No. 20/2017 dated 22.08.2017 ceased to exist from 25.01.2018 upon its substitution by Notification No. 1/2018 dated 25.08.2018, the petitioner was entitled to claim refund for the subject period from March, 2018 to July, 2019 and consequently, the impugned orders passed by the respondents deserve to be set aside and the refund claim of the petitioner deserves to be allowed on this ground also. ....