Saurabh Singal VS Central Goods And Services Tax

The petitioner has filed a petition requesting directions for the respondent to implement an order dated 08.10.2020, alongside challenging a verification report dated 08.03.2021. Engaged in the footwear supply business under the sole proprietorship M/s Lavya International, the petitioner sought a refund of ₹9,98,246, inclusive of Central Goods and Services Tax.

The petitioner has filed a petition seeking implementation of an order dated 08.10.2020 and challenging a verification report dated 08.03.2021. Engaged in footwear supply under the name M/s Lavya International, a sole proprietorship, the petitioner applied for a refund of ₹9,98,246, including ₹4,02,000 CGST and ₹5,96,246 SGST for June 2018 to December 2018. The application, dated 15.05.2019, was acknowledged, asserting entitlement under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act.

The petitioner has filed a petition seeking implementation of an October 8, 2020 order and challenges a March 8, 2021 verification report. Engaged in footwear supply under the sole proprietorship M/s Lavya International, the petitioner applied for a ₹9,98,246 refund, comprising ₹4,02,000 CGST and ₹5,96,246 SGST for June to December 2018. Their refund application, acknowledged May 15, 2019, relates to Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act 2017 due to an inverted duty structure, where Input Tax Credit exceeds output liability for supplied goods.

The petitioner seeks directions to enforce an order from 08.10.2020 and challenges a verification report from 08.03.2021. Engaged in footwear supply under M/s Lavya International, the petitioner applied for a ₹9,98,246 refund, including ₹4,02,000 CGST and ₹5,96,246 SGST for June-December 2018. Their refund application was acknowledged on 15.05.2019, citing Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act due to an inverted duty structure. Despite the petitioner’s excess Input Tax Credit over output liability, the refund claim was rejected on 16.12.2019. The rejection centered on the discrepancy between the claimed refund period of seven months and the filing schedule of quarterly or monthly returns required by the respondent.

The petitioner has filed a petition seeking implementation of an order dated 08.10.2020 and contesting the verification report dated 08.03.2021. Engaged in the footwear supply business under the name M/s Lavya International, the petitioner sought a refund totaling ₹9,98,246, comprising ₹4,02,000 of Central Goods and Services Tax and ₹5,96,246 of State Goods and Services Tax, for June 2018 to December 2018. The refund claim, under Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, arose due to an inverted duty structure where Input Tax Credit exceeded output liability. Initially rejected on procedural grounds regarding filing periods not aligning with return filings, the petitioner appealed successfully on 08.10.2020, prompting a refund application on 29.12.2020.

The petitioner has filed a petition seeking enforcement of an order from 08.10.2020 and challenging a verification report from 08.03.2021. Engaged in footwear supply under the name M/s Lavya International, the petitioner applied for a refund of ₹9,98,246, including ₹4,02,000 CGST and ₹5,96,246 SGST for June 2018 to December 2018. The refund application, submitted on 15.05.2019 under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act due to inverted duty structure, was initially rejected on grounds of mismatched refund periods versus filed returns. The petitioner’s subsequent appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) succeeded on 08.10.2020, overturning the rejection. Despite this, a refund application filed on 29.12.2020 remains unprocessed.

The petitioner has filed a petition seeking directions for the respondent to enforce an order from October 8, 2020, and contesting a verification report from March 8, 2021. Engaged in footwear supply under M/s Lavya International, the petitioner applied for a ₹9,98,246 refund (₹4,02,000 CGST, ₹5,96,246 SGST) for June-December 2018, citing an inverted duty structure under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017. Despite acknowledgement, the refund claim was rejected on December 16, 2019, due to discrepancies in return periods. The petitioner won an appeal on October 8, 2020, reversing the rejection. Yet, a subsequent review order on February 18, 2021, questioned the appellate decision, prompting unresolved administrative actions.

The petitioner seeks court direction for implementing an October 8, 2020 order and challenges a March 8, 2021 verification report. Engaged in footwear supply under M/s Lavya International, the petitioner applied for a ₹9,98,246 refund (₹4,02,000 CGST, ₹5,96,246 SGST) for June to December 2018, citing an inverted duty structure per Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act 2017. Initially rejected on procedural grounds, an appeal was won on October 8, 2020, reinstating the refund claim. Despite this, the refund remains unprocessed. A review order on February 18, 2021 required an appeal filing, still pending due to tribunal constitution delays.

The petitioner seeks court directions to enforce an October 8, 2020 order and challenges a March 8, 2021 verification report. Engaged in footwear supply under “M/s Lavya International,” the petitioner applied for a ₹9,98,246 refund (CGST ₹4,02,000; SGST ₹5,96,246) for June to December 2018, based on an inverted duty structure under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017. The refund claim, acknowledged May 15, 2019, was initially rejected on procedural grounds by a December 16, 2019 order. Following a successful appeal on October 8, 2020, the petitioner reapplied for refund on December 29, 2020, but it remains unprocessed. A review order on February 18, 2021, called for an appeal against the appellate authority’s decision, yet no appeal has been filed.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: