Skip to main content

Home » Laws » GST Case Laws » OHMI INDUSTRIES ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST

OHMI INDUSTRIES ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST

High Court, Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, Justice & Amit Mahajan, Justice

OHMI INDUSTRIES ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST

W.P.(C) 6856/2022 dated 29.03.2023

Law : GST
Act Name : Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017
Rule Number : Rule 89
Rule Name : Central Goods & Services Rules, 2017
Decision : Matter remanded back

Refund claim – The petitioner in this case assails order dated 26.11.2021, whereby petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 30.07.2020 was rejected – The petitioner sought for refund amounting to Rs.3,99,187/- being the integrated tax paid on the export of services – The Adjudicating Authority had applied the formula under Rule 89(4) of CGST Rules while determining the quantum of the refund while petitioner contends that refund was rejected on basis of Rule 89(4) but this rule would be applied only for refund in respect to exports made without payment of integrated tax – Held that: Observed that, the petitioner had discharged his tax liability in relation to zero rated supplies for October, 2018 and that same was also reflected in GSTR 3B in respect of said month and refund was rejected by Adjudicating Authority by referring to sub-clause (D) of Rule 89(4) of CGST Rules – Referred to Rule 89(4) holds that it amply clear that it applies only in cases of zero rated supply of goods or services, without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking – Found merit in the petitioner’s contention – Moreover, the Appellate authority also failed to address the contention and proceeded to mechanically reject petitioner’s appeal on, ex facie, erroneous assumption that petitioner was seeking refund of accumulated ITC, whereas he was seeking refund of integrated tax as paid by him – Directed to set aside the impugned order and matter was to be remanded to Appellate Authority for deciding afresh.

Represented By:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sparsh Bhargava, Adv.

Continue Reading...
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.

🔒 Premium Content

Subscribe to access complete articles, notifications, circulars, case laws, downloads, videos and premium resources.

Become Premium Member