Supply Valuation case laws
Look up GST High Court, GSTAT, and advance-ruling decisions by topic — with a complete summary for each matter and the source judgment PDF when you need the full text.
3 rulings
Cvent India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST
See the decision
Cvent India (P.) Ltd., an IT and IT-enabled services provider, filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP 22461/2023, 21 July 2026) against rejection of refund of unutilized input tax credit for an intervening period while refunds for earlier and later periods were allowed when it was treated as an exporter. IGST Sections 2, 13 and 16 and CGST Section 54 framed place-of-supply and refund issues. The department reclassified the petitioner as intermediary for the disputed period without material distinction in services rendered. The court found that action illegal and arbitrary, set aside the appellate order and restored equitable refund treatment. Outcome favoured the assessee on merits of classification consistency. Export-oriented IT companies should ensure uniform characterization across periods to avoid selective intermediary denial of Section 54 refunds.
Fives Call - KCP Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Customs
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Fives Call-KCP Ltd. filed before the Madras High Court (WP 30288/2023, 29 June 2026) against rejection of IGST refund on zero-rated exports. The department relied on Board Circular No. 37/2018, which the court noted was struck down as inconsistent with IGST Sections 16 and 20 and CGST Rule 96. Rejection without examining the claim under governing statute and rules was unsustainable. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication on merits under proper legal standards, including verification of shipping bills and refund application. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. Exporters should cite this when refunds are denied solely on circular grounds after judicial invalidation of restrictive CBIC guidance, ensuring adjudicators apply Section 16 and Rule 96 rather than obsolete circular tests.
Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions (P.) Ltd. filed writs before the Madras High Court (WP 10053–10056/2026, 8 June 2026) against orders treating SEZ unit supplies and services for authorized operations as not zero-rated because Letter of Undertaking and SEZ Certificate were not on record, under IGST Section 16 and Rule 96A. Refunds or benefits of zero rating were denied across multiple tax periods. During proceedings the assessee offered documents for verification. The court set aside adjudication orders and remanded to enable submission and verification as Section 16 requires. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. SEZ developers and units facing refund denial for documentary gaps may secure remand where willingness to produce LOU and SEZ certificate is demonstrated rather than refusing zero rating outright.