Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTSEZ Unit Can’t Be Denied GST ITC Refund Solely Because It Is...

SEZ Unit Can’t Be Denied GST ITC Refund Solely Because It Is Not Supplier: Madras High Court

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Madras High Court has set aside an order rejecting a special economic zone (SEZ) unit’s GST refund claim on the ground that only a supplier making supplies to an SEZ can apply for a refund. 

The bench of Justice Ramamoorthy directed the tax authorities to process the unit’s application within two months of receiving a copy of its order.

BUY NOW: 500+ CGST Notifications (2017–2025) | Clickable Index E-Magazine | Hyperlinked Original PDFs

The appellant company had challenged both the original order dated November 9, 2023, and the appellate order dated February 13, 2024.

The tax authorities took the view that Section 16 of the IGST Act, Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, read together, permit a supplier making supplies to an SEZ unit to seek a refund, but do not permit the SEZ unit itself to claim a refund of unutilised input tax credit (ITC).

That interpretation was the central issue before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy. The company argued that the High Court had already decided the same legal question in Platinum Holdings Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, and had reaffirmed that position in Urjita Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner GST & CE.

The department informed the court that it had filed a writ appeal against the Platinum Holdings judgment. It also acknowledged that no interim order had been obtained in that appeal.

The court followed its earlier decisions. In Platinum Holdings, the High Court had held that Rule 89(1) does not restrict refund applications to suppliers alone. Although another part of Rule 89 refers to a supplier making supplies to an SEZ, that reference does not, by itself, exclude other eligible applicants. The court had also rejected the Revenue’s interpretation that effectively read an additional restriction into the rule.

Finding no reason to depart from that reasoning, Justice Ramamoorthy set aside the challenged order and directed the authorities to process McKinsey’s refund application in accordance with the judgments cited in the order.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Read More: ICAI Announces January 2027 CA Intermediate and Foundation Exam Dates; Check Paper Timings

Nikhil Bhandari
Nikhil Bhandari
Nikhil Bhandari is a Chartered Accountant and a Indirect Tax professional with over 5 years of post-qualification experience in tax advisory, compliance management, and tax process optimization. Associated with SDU LLP since August 2015 spanning his articleship through to his current role as Manager Nikhil has uniquely navigated India’s transition from the legacy tax regime into the GST era.His expertise encompasses both strategic advisory and Indirect Tax litigation, where he represents clients in complex disputes across the manufacturing, service, and e-commerce sectors. By providing high-level counsel to corporate leadership, he ensures that tax positions are not only robust and compliant but also structured for long-term operational efficiency.Beyond his core practice, Nikhil is a proactive contributor to the GST ecosystem. He is dedicated to tracking and analyzing judicial precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, fostering greater clarity and ease of access to tax intelligence for the wider professional community.

Latest articles

Married Daughters Can Keep Jewellery at Parental Home: ITAT Deletes Additions

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted additions totalling...

Gold Paste Worth ₹36.89 Lakh Seized From 2 Passengers Arriving From Colombo

The Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) at Trichy International Airport intercepted two male passengers arriving...

Deduction For Expenses Disallowed Over TDS Default Can Be Claimed After Tax Payment Despite Omission In Return: ITAT

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, has allowed a deduction of ₹10,48,139...

₹5.34 Crore GST Notice Covering Four Financial Years Faces Challenge: Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Protection

The Calcutta High Court has granted conditional interim protection in a challenge to a...

More like this

Married Daughters Can Keep Jewellery at Parental Home: ITAT Deletes Additions

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted additions totalling...

Gold Paste Worth ₹36.89 Lakh Seized From 2 Passengers Arriving From Colombo

The Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) at Trichy International Airport intercepted two male passengers arriving...

Deduction For Expenses Disallowed Over TDS Default Can Be Claimed After Tax Payment Despite Omission In Return: ITAT

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, has allowed a deduction of ₹10,48,139...