Gujarat High Court holds refund claims maintainable for interest paid under protest on wrongly demanded GST for assignment of leasehold rights, quashing mechanical rejection via RFD-03.
The Court held that an appeal filed electronically within limitation, with pre-deposit and portal-uploaded order, is legally valid. Authorities cannot dismiss such appeals on the technical ground of non-submission of hard copies.
The Court ruled that large gaps between GST returns and ITR figures cannot justify Section 74 demands without forensic verification. Actual supplies must be established through audit.
The Court struck down key tribunal reform provisions, holding that reintroducing invalidated clauses is unconstitutional, directly impacting the design and functioning of GSTAT.
The Supreme Court stayed GST proceedings after finding the show cause notice under Section 74 contained only figures without explaining fraud or suppression. The ruling stresses that detailed allegations are mandatory to invoke extended limitation.
The court ruled that Section 74 proceedings cannot be invoked in the absence of fraud or wilful suppression, especially where tax and interest were voluntarily paid before investigation.
The Court upheld the Tribunal’s view that interest cannot be levied when duty paid is fully creditable to downstream units. It confirms that compensatory interest requires actual revenue loss.
The court ruled that a CBIC circular on deemed exports cannot block ITC refunds for actual exporters. Refunds under Section 54(3) must follow the statute when no deemed export benefits are claimed.
The High Court held that mandating monthly ISD credit distribution through rules exceeded the powers granted under the CGST Act. Procedural rules cannot impose time limits absent legislative authorization.
The Court admitted the Revenue’s appeal against a tribunal ruling that set aside excise demands as revenue neutral. The key takeaway is that the legal question on valuation under Rules 8 and 9 remains open for final determination.
