HomeGSTNotification No. 54/2018 | IGST Refund Denial To Advance-Authorisation Holders Operates Prospectively:...

Notification No. 54/2018 | IGST Refund Denial To Advance-Authorisation Holders Operates Prospectively: Surat GST Commissionerate

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Surat GST Commissionerate has held that Denial Of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) refund to Advance-Authorisation Holders operates prospectively.

The bench of Amar Bahadur Singh (Additional Commissioner) has relied on several judgments of High Court of Gujarat and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of M/s Sans laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India in which it was held that the Notification 54/2018 has to be applied prospectively from 09-10-2018 and not retrospectively.

The applicant, M/s Ami Organics Limited is in the business of manufacturing, import, export, warehouse, recipient of service and goods, supplier of service etc. of acetals and hemiacetals. 

The Noticee were also availing the benefit of IGST refund in terms of Rule 96 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 at the material time.

The issue raised was whether or not the amount of refund of Rs. 7,64,91,294 granted to the Noticee during the period from October 2017 to March 2018 was to be held as erroneously granted on the ground of the violation of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules 2017 and, if so, whether or not the said amount should be ordered to be recovered under the provisions of Section 74(1) of CGST Act 2017. 

The connected issues were the Noticee’s liability to pay Interest in terms of Section 50(1) of the Act and the further issue relating to liabilities to penalty under Section 74(1) ibid read with Section 122(1)(viii) of the Act. 

In the prima facie view of the department, exception carved from the restriction imposed by sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 is applicable with retrospective effect (from October 2017). 

On the other hand, the Noticee contend that they are entitled to refund for the period prior to the date of Notification of 54/2018 as the Notification came to be notified only on 09-10-2018 and therefore the Notification has only prospective effect.

The commissioner quashed the Show Cause Notice fails and held that the refund cannot be erroneously granted.

Read More: ‘Samsung Galaxy Ring’ Imported Into India Classifiable As “Other Instruments, Appliances And Machines”, And Not Imitation Jewellery: CAAR

Case Details

Case No.: Order-In-Original No.: Surat/GST/ABS/52/2024-25

Date: 01.01.2025

Counsel For Applicant: Advocate Shileth Seth

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2026 Proposes SC Regional Benches, Judicial Diversity, Caste-Based Census By States And Much More

DMK Rajya Sabha MP and Senior Advocate P. Wilson introduced the Constitution (Amendment) Bill,...

Excess Reversal of CENVAT Credit on Inter-Unit Transfers Not Illegal: CESTAT

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Demand Under RCM Can’t Be Sustained If Entire Service Tax Liability Has Already Been Discharged By Service Provider: CESTAT

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held...

Separate AC Supply and Installation Contracts Qualifies as Works Contract: CESTAT 

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad Bench, has held that...

More like this

Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2026 Proposes SC Regional Benches, Judicial Diversity, Caste-Based Census By States And Much More

DMK Rajya Sabha MP and Senior Advocate P. Wilson introduced the Constitution (Amendment) Bill,...

Excess Reversal of CENVAT Credit on Inter-Unit Transfers Not Illegal: CESTAT

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Demand Under RCM Can’t Be Sustained If Entire Service Tax Liability Has Already Been Discharged By Service Provider: CESTAT

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held...