^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

TVL. MEHAR TEX vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHER
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

G.R. SWAMINATHAN

Pet. Counsel

B. Rooban

Res. Counsel

S. Ragaventhre

G. Arjunan

Petitioner / Applicant	TVL. MEHAR TEX
Respondent	THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHER
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Mar 18, 2021
Order No.	W.P.(MD)Nos.22996, 22999 & 23001 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.19733, 19736 & 19739 of 2019
Citation	2021(3) TAXREPLY 4258
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Rule 92

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner has registered himself with the third respondent and they are also filing monthly returns under the Goods and Service Tax Act. The petitioner's case is that they had made zero rated sales during the months October 2017, November 2017 and February 2018(exports). According to the petitioner, they are therefore entitled to corresponding refund under all the three heads, namely, SGST, CGST and IGST. However, when the refund applications were uploaded, the entire claim got consolidated and figured under the head of SGST alone. While considering the refund applications, the second respondent restricted the refund claim to the extent of the petitioner's liability for the respective months only under the head of SGST under Rule 92 of CGST Rules, 2017 and reje....