TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dt. 16-12-2024 1,70,00,00 Dec 19 AA090924203522B dt 28-09-2024 3. 2026054101000020 dated 15-01-2026 ZD091224212475J dt. 19-12-2024 85,00.000 Jan 20 AA09 1024085710D dt 15-10-2024 4. 2026054101000021 dated 15-01-2026 ZD0901253460240 dt 3 1-01-25 36,00,000 July-Aug 20 AA091224C)605665 dt 12-12-2024 5. 2026054101000022 dated 15-01-2026 ZD090125345781B dt 31-01-2025 90,00,000 Sep 20 AA09102240719309 dt 14-12-2024 These claims, covering periods from April 2019 to September 2020. Since the issue, factual circumstances, and grounds of appeal are identical across all five cases, and they involve the same appellant, this common order addresses all appeals. 1.0 Question of law 1.1 The claims filed based on the amended Rule 89(5) vide Notification No. 14/2022-CT dated 05-07-2022. As per the Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10-11-2022 the amendment is prospective in nature or retrospective. 1.2 Restrictions imposed by Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax (Rate) and limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2.0 Brief Facts of the Case 2.1 M/s B.L. Agro Industries Ltd, B-3 1, Road No. 2, Parsakhera, In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s engaged in manufacture of edible oils and had been claiming refund under Section 54(3) read with Rule 89(5). Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 substituted the formula under Rule 89(5) by incorporating input-service ITC in the computation. The respondent filed differential refund claims after 05.07.2022. iii. Since the refund applications in the present appeals were filed after 05.07.2022, the substituted formula under Rule 89(5) is applicable to such applications in terms of the clarification contained in Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022. The relevant consideration is the date of filing of the refund application, subject to verification of the eligibility and quantum of ITC, as clarified by the circular- S.No. Issue Clarification 1. Whether the formula prescribed under sub-rule (5) of rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 for calculation of refund of unutilised input tax credit on account of inverted duty structure, as amended vide Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, will apply only to the refund applications filed on or after 05.07.2022, or whether the same will also apply in respect of the refund applications....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The limitation objection in respect of the claims for October 2019, December 2019, January 2020, July-August 2020 and September 2020 is also not sustainable. Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 excludes the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computation from limitation due to COVID-19 disruptions. After giving effect to such exclusion, the aforesaid refund claims fall within the prescribed period under Section 54. The refund claims cannot be rejected merely on the grounds of applicability of the amended Rule 89(5) formula, classification of certain entries in the service annexure, or limitation without considering the applicable statutory provisions and notifications. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal, the Department has preferred the present second appeal before the Tribunal, mainly challenging the applicability of the amended Rule 89(5), the admissibility of supplementary refund claims pertaining to periods for which refund claims had already been dealt with, and the findings of the First Appellate Authority regarding the restrictions imposed by Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax (Rate) and limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch claims admissible, as the substantive eligibility and other statutory conditions governing refund are also required to be satisfied. 3.9 The Appellant has relied in his argument upon the citation: Ruchisoya Industries Ltd. Submitted that the findings recorded in the impugned Order-in-Appeal are contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, the CGST Rules, 2017, the relevant notifications and circulars, and the material available on record. Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-Appeal is liable to be set aside and the orders passed by the adjudicating authority are liable to be restored. 4.1 SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT 4.1 The Respondent submitted that the amended formula under Rule 89(5) should be applied to the refund applications filed after 05.07.2022. It was submitted that the amendment was made to include input service ITC while calculating the refund and that the same view had been taken by various judicial authorities. The Respondent relied upon, inter alia, the decisions in Renuka Sugar Ltd. and Ascent Meditech Ltd. and also relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the Department's SLP against the decision in Ascent Meditech Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt. 4.9 The Respondent submitted that Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 cannot restrict the benefit otherwise available under the statutory provisions and judicial interpretation of Rule 89(5). It was therefore contended that the refund could not be rejected merely on the basis of the said circular. 4.10 It was further submitted that refund under the amended formula had already been sanctioned by the jurisdictional authority for other relevant periods and no appeal had been filed against such sanction. Therefore, the Department ought not to take a contrary view in respect of the present claim in the absence of any material change in facts or law. 4.11 With regard to the decision in Ruchisoya Industries Ltd., the Respondent submitted that the said decision is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the present case in view of the subsequent amendment to Rule 89(5) and the judicial pronouncements cited above. 5.0 FINDINGS 5.1 We have carefully considered the facts of the case, the impugned Orders-in-Original, the grounds of appeal, the submissions of the appellant and Respondent the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority. 5.2 The ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... within the period prescribed under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. The SLP filed by the Department against the said decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.03.2025. In the case of Ascent Meditech Ltd. Reported in 2025 (93) G.S.T.L (Guj), the petitioner had been claiming refund of unutilized ITC u/s 54(3) of CGST Act 2017. On amendment in formula vide notification no 14/2022, they filed application for rectification of refund claim. However, the department had denied the claim on the ground that amendment is not clarificatory in nature and cannot be applied to the refund claims for the period prior to 05-07-2022. The hon'ble High Court in para 48 held as under. "In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 24-8-2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Circular No. 181/13/22, dated 10-11-2022 so far as it clarifies that the amendment is not clarificatory in nature is quashed and set aside and it is held that the Notification No. 14/2022 is applicable retrospectively as the amendment brought in Rule 89(5) of the Rules is curative and clarificatory in nature and the same would be applicable retrospectively to the refund or rectification appl....