TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BLY-1/2024-25 dt. 01.05.2024 11.11.2023 3. 2026054101000086 Dated 22-01-2026 Dec, 2018 115.00 Lacs 18/Ref/AC/BLY-1/2024-25 dt. 02.05.2024 15.01.2024 4. 2026054101000087 Dated 22-01-2026 Jan.2019 75.00 Lacs dt. 20.05.2024 22/Ref/AC/BLY-1/2024-25 03.02.2024 5. 2026054101000088 Dated 22-01-2026 March 2019, 75.00 Lacs 23/Ref/AC/BLY-1/2024-25 dt. 20.05.2024 08.02.2024 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. 2. Question of law 2.1 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. 2.2 Supplementary/refund claims could be rejected merely because earlier refund claims for the same periods had already been filed. 3. Brief Facts of the Case 3.1 The respondent is engaged in business of manufacturing and supply of various types of edible oil which are classifiable under chapter 15 of Custom Tariff 1962. The respondent have be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act. 3.6 The proper officer again rejected all the refund claims on the grounds mentioned in the show cause notices as detailed supra, through separate orders. The respondent again filed second time appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 3.7 The first appellate authority, in their observation stated that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture and supply of edible oil, were entitled to claim refund under the inverted duty structure. The Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, which substituted Rule 89(5) to include ITC on input services in the refund formula, was applicable to all refund applications filed after 05.07.2022, irrespective of the period in which the ITC had accumulated. Since all the present refund claims were filed after 05.07.2022, the amended formula was applicable. 3.8 The first appellate authority stated that there was no legal bar on filing a supplementary refund claim, particularly where the original claim was filed as NIL and the additional claim arose due to the substituted refund formula. In view of Rule 97A of the CGST Rules, 2017, the refund applications could also be filed manually where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned First Appellate Authority is not legal and proper and is liable to be set aside. 4.3 The appellant submitted that the learned First Appellate Authority erred in allowing supplementary refund claims pertaining to the same tax periods for which refund claims had already been filed and disposed of under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 4.4 The appellant submitted that the amended formula prescribed under Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 is prospective in nature and cannot be applied to the supplementary refund claims relating to the earlier refund applications. The appellant further relied upon Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 in support of its contention. 4.5 The appellant submitted that the learned First Appellate Authority erred in allowing differential refund for the same tax periods after the original refund claims had already been adjudicated, without properly considering the statutory provisions governing refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017. 4.6 The Appellant has relied in his argument upon the citation: Ruchisoya Industries Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken in the present case. 5.6 Regarding Ruchisoya Industries Ltd., the Respondent submitted that the decision was distinguishable and could not govern the present case in view of the subsequent amendment to Rule 89(5) and the later judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent. 6. FINDINGS 6.1 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 and the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority. 6.2 The main issue is whether the refund claims filed after 05.07.2022 are eligible to be considered under the amended formula prescribed under Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The First Appellate Authority has recorded that all the refund applications in the present case were filed after 05.07.2022, whereas the period to which the accumulated ITC relates is prior to that date. The principal issue, therefore, is whether the substituted formula under Rule 89(5), introduced vide Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, can be applied to such refund claims. We find that the relevant date for applicability of the substituted formula is the date of f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nature and is applicable retrospectively to refund or rectification applications filed 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. 6.6 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 54 of Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017-Section 16 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Rule 89 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 . 6.9 In view of the above judicial pronouncements and the fact that the refund applications in the present case were filed after 05.07.2022, the finding of the First Appellate Authority that the amended formula under Rule 89(5) is applicable to the present refund claims is found to be proper. 6.10 We place reliance upon the refund sanction order dated 17.08.2022 in their own case, wherein a refund claim filed on 07.07.2022 for March 2022 had been processed by applying the substituted formula. Since the said order had not been reviewed by the department, the proper officer treated the same as a relevant circumstance supporting the appellants' interpretation. Accordingly, we find that the amended formula under Rule 89(5) was applicable to the claims under consideration. 6.11 We find that the amended formula under Rule 89(5), introduced vide Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, was applicable to the refund applications filed after 05.07.2022. Thus, the....