2023 (1) TMI 1465 - HC - GST

Rejection of refund claim - rejection on the ground that the petitioner has sought such refund under the provisions of Rule 95A and the Circular No.106/25/2019/GST dated 29.06.2019 - HELD THAT - The respondent does not dispute the premise in which the refund is sought for and he emphasizes that all questions otherwise may be left open for consideration including the consideration of the petitioner s prayer for reversal of ITC based on the decision in SANDEEP PATIL FLEMINGO TRAVEL RETAIL LIMITED ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. 2019 (10) TMI 360 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Petition allowed.

Summary

In the case before the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad, the petitioner challenged several orders under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), specifically concerning the rejection of refund applications under Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sri Ravi Raghavan, argued that the refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was improperly denied based on the provisions of Rule 95A and Circular No. 106/25/2019/GST, both of which were later rescinded with retrospective effect from July 1, 2019.

The petitioner further contended that the decision overlooked relevant case law, including the Bombay High Court's ruling in Sandeep Patil vs. Union of India. The respondent's counsel, Sri Amit Deshpande, acknowledged the basis for the refund claim but suggested that all related issues should remain open for further consideration.

The court, agreeing with the petitioner's arguments, quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matters for reconsideration, allowing both parties to present their contentions anew.