Rashmi Agency v. Deputy Commissioner CT & GST
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
The ruling in brief
Rashmi Agency petitioned the High Court of Orissa (W.P.(C) No. 17470 of 2026, decided 25 June 2026) for refund of GST amount paid under protest after securing appellate relief in related proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner denied refund citing potential department appeal or unexpired limitation despite no pending proceeding or Commissioner withholding order in RFD-07 Part A at the relevant date. Under Sections 54 and 112 read with Rule 92, the court held this reasoning unlawful as a basis to withhold amounts already adjudicated in the assessee's favour. The denial was set aside and the matter remanded for refund processing. Outcome favoured the assessee. Refund follow-up after appellate success cannot rest on speculative future appeals alone. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.54 — Refund of tax, interest, or other amounts.
- CGST S.112 — Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.
- CGST Rules R.92 — Rule 92 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. v. Union of India
Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. filed a writ before the High Court of Orissa (W.P.(C) No. 17093 of 2025, decided 2 July 2026) challenging recovery and denial of accumulated input tax credit refund following retrospective amendment of Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules. The assessee sought direct high court relief; revenue relied on departmental circulars suggesting no useful appeal lay. Under Sections 54 and 112, the court held the GST Appellate Tribunal could adjudicate facts and law independently and circulars did not render statutory appeal futile. The writ was dismissed with liberty to file appeal before GSTAT. Outcome favoured the revenue on forum selection, without finally deciding refund entitlement on merits. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.
In favour of the assessee
Union of India v. ABB Global Industries and Services (P.) Ltd
The Union of India appealed before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Appeal No. 1524 of 2026, decided 15 September 2026) against an order allowing ABB Global Industries and Services (P) Ltd. refund of tax paid on export of services. Refund had been rejected under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, including the erstwhile Rule 96(10) restriction, which was omitted without saving or sunset provision. The Division Bench affirmed that ongoing restriction after omission could not be maintained, following Supreme Court precedent that proceedings under an omitted rule cannot continue without express savings language. The appeal failed; outcome favoured the assessee on IGST and CGST Sections 54 and Rule 96 framework for export refunds. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
MAC Industry v. Union of India
MAC Industry challenged refund denial before the High Court of Gujarat (R/Special Civil Application No. 1693 of 2026, decided 3 September 2026) under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules restricting IGST refund on exports. The show cause notice and consequential order were issued after Rule 96(10) was omitted from the rules without a saving clause. Relying on IGST Section 16, CGST Section 54, Rule 96, and the Gujarat High Court decision in Goodluck India Ltd., the court held the restriction could not survive for pending or subsequent proceedings. Related SCN and orders were quashed. Outcome favoured the assessee. Omission of a restrictive rule without savings typically ends its application to new adjudication. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Super Wave Technology (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
Super Wave Technology (P) Ltd. filed a writ before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 13162 of 2026, decided 24 August 2026) after denial of refund based on transitional input tax credit for an X-ray inspection system imported before GST rollout, claimed through GSTR-3B following central administrative advice. Revenue cited closure of the TRAN-1 window and jurisdictional objections without examining entitlement on merits. Under Sections 54, 140, and Rule 117, the court found refund was never adjudicated substantively. The petitioner was granted liberty to represent before the central assessing authority for a decision on transitional credit eligibility. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand for substantive consideration rather than outright grant of refund. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
See the decision
KPIL-JWIL Joint Venture v. State of Bihar
KPIL-JWIL Joint Venture, a Munger-registered works contractor, filed a writ before the Patna High Court (CWJC No. 5398 of 2026, decided 13 August 2026) against a deficiency memo in Form GST RFD-03 dated 1 March 2025 proposing rejection of Rs. 1.75 crore refund from its electronic cash ledger under Section 54 read with Rule 90. An earlier refund rejection based on alleged ineligible input tax credit had been set aside on appeal; revenue filed revision and later an appeal before GSTAT. The assessee argued Section 54(11) barred withholding refund during tribunal appeal unless the Commissioner passed a reasoned withholding order after hearing. No such order existed. The court disposed the writ directing the Commissioner to issue show cause, grant personal hearing, and pass a reasoned Section 54(11) order within stipulated timelines.