Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, sub-rule (5) of Rule 89 of the said Rules gives the formula for computation of refund of input tax credit and explanation (a) therein excludes input tax service credit from the definition of Net ITC, though it is shown under the turn over of inverted rated supply of goods and services therein.

Refund — Section 54 of the CGST Act — The petitioner challenged the vires of Rule 89 (5) of the Rules on the ground that it runs contrary to the provisions of Section 54 (3) of the Act, 2017. The cause of action to challenge the rules has arisen because the application of the petitioner for refund of Rs.39,28,339/, which is the amount of Input Service Credit, has been rejected on the basis of the provisions of sub-rule 5 of Rule 89 read with the Notification No.5/2017, dated 28.06.2017. The petitioner submitted that provisions of Section 54 (3) which entitles to claim refund of unutilized input tax credit which is defined under Section 2 (63) and the input tax is defined under Section 2 (62) to mean the tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both made to him. Further sub-rule (5) of Rule 89 of the said Rules gives the formula for computation of refund of input tax credit and explanation (a) therein excludes input tax service credit from the definition of Net ITC, though it is shown under the turnover of inverted rated supply of goods and services therein.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court issued notice for final disposal of the matter, to the respondents, returnable on 09.10.2019.—Raymond Uco Denim Private Limited Vs. The Union of India And Others [2019] 15 TAXLOK.COM 060 (Bombay)