Vindhya Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
Vindhya Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. filed a writ before the High Court of Madras (W.P.(MD) Nos. 16757 & 16758 of 2025, decided 14 July 2026) for refund of accumulated input tax credit under inverted duty structure. The manufacturer of combed cotton yarn used certain inputs taxed at higher rates than the output. Refund under Section 54 read with Rule 89 was rejected because the principal input matched the output rate. Under Section 168, the court held the statute allows refund if any input attracts higher GST than output; a circular restricting refund to non-principal inputs was unconstitutional. Refund with interest was directed. Outcome favoured the assessee on inverted duty refund eligibility. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.
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.168 — Power to issue instructions or directions by the Board.
- CGST Rules R.89 — Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
Source documents
Similar rulings
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.
In favour of the assessee
J K Cement Works v. Commissioner CGST
J K Cement Works, a cement manufacturer, petitioned the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (CWP No. 29456 of 2025, decided 28 July 2026) for release of GST refund sanctioned by order in 2022 but withheld by the department pending its belated appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal, which remained unlisted. Under Sections 54 and 119 of the CGST Act, the court found the petitioner could not be regarded as a fly-by-night operator given its established manufacturing operations. Release of the refund amount was directed subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking to redeposit the sum with interest if the departmental appeal ultimately succeeded. The outcome favoured the assessee while protecting revenue interest during appellate uncertainty. This editorial summary is not legal advice.