Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re Daewoo-TPL JV (GST AAR Maharashtra)
Appeal Number : Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-113/2018-19/B-41
Date of Judgement/Order : 24/04/2019
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

In re Daewoo-TPL JV (GST AAR Maharashtra)

Q.No. 1): The Applicant though eligible to claim for refund of inverted duty structure under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, wishes to understand in-principle applicability of Notification 21 and 26 in as much whether the same allow for refund of ITC availed on input services (and remaining unutilized) in whole or part thereof.

Answer: Both the Notifications Notification No 21/2018 – Central Tax (Rate) dated April 18, 2018 and Notification No. 26/2018-Central Tax dated 13.06.2018 21 do apply to the Applicant which prescribe the method for carrying out provisions of Section 54 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore do not allow refund of ITC availed on input services (and remaining unutilized) in whole or part thereof, in view of the definition of ‘input’ contained in the sub-section (59) of Section 2 of the GST Act, 2017 and the definition of ‘Net ITC’ contained in the Notification No. 26/2018-Central Tax dated 13.06.2018.

Q.No.2) :Where the answer to above is negative, the Applicant wishes to understand how does the Notification 21 and 26 apply in a scenario where factually following financials may exist:

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031