- About us
- Site map
- Contact Us
- Contact Us
The Petitioner a SEZ unit, had filed refund applications for taxes paid under CGST/SGST and IGST. The said refund claims had been rejected on the ground that only a supplier of services would be entitled to refund and not the SEZ in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ before the Madras HC.
The HC observed that the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, providing for a refund, apply to ‘any person’ who claims such refund. Therefore, the same shall also apply to SEZ units. It was further observed that the statutory scheme for refund admits applications to be filed by any entity that believes that it is so entitled, including the Petitioner. The HC also noted that the language of Rule 89, also echoes that of section 54, and both the provision and the Rule commence with the phrase 'any person'.
In view of the above, the HC observed that the restriction read by the Revenue in the provisions of section 54 and Rule 89 was misplaced. It was further held that as a settled position, there can be no insertion of a word or phrase in a statutory provision or in a Rule which must be read and applied, as framed. The Revenue cannot restrict or amplify the Rule by interpretation. Accordingly, the HC disposed off the Writ filed by the Petitioner.
Platinum Holdings Private Limited [W.P. No.13284, 13286, 13287, 13289, 13291 & 13292 of 2020]
The information provided in this update is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion or advice. Readers are requested to seek formal legal advice prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein. This update is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or corporate body. There can be no assurance that the judicial/ quasi judicial authorities may not take a position contrary to the views mentioned hereinrra quis.
Sign up for the Newsletter