Taxpayer entitled to refund under Inverted Duty Structure when tax on input erroneously charged by the Supplier at higher rate

Last updated: 21 December 2023
Quick Summary
The Madras High Court has ruled that a taxpayer is entitled to a refund under the Inverted Duty Structure, even if the supplier erroneously charged a higher rate of tax on input materials. The court upheld the refund order, stating there was no illegality in the Assistant Commissioner's (Appeals) decision. Consequently, the Revenue Department was directed to issue the refund along with interest.

Court :
Madras High Court

Brief :
The Hon'ble Madras High Court in The Commercial Tax Officer v. M/s Suzlon Energy Limited and Others, [W.P. No. 10852 & 10855 of 2021 dated November 16, 2023]  dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Department and reaffirmed the order of refund passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), thereby holding that, the Taxpayer is entitled to refund under Inverted Duty Structure when Input tax is erroneously charged by Supplier at higher rate.

Citation :
W.P. No. 10852 & 10855 of 2021 dated November 16, 2023

Daily Limit Reached

You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Judgements

Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access

Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
  • No Ads
  • WhatsApp Broadcasts
  • Daily E-Newsletter
  • Unlimited Judgements Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
View all CCI PRO benfits

Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.

 

Bimal Jain
Published in Income Tax
Views : 630
Share Report Abuse
Comments


Recent Judgments :

  1. ITAT Jodhpur: AO Allows ₹2.61 Crore Deduction under Sections 54EC and 54F; Assessee's Appeal Dismissed as Infructuous
  2. CESTAT Revokes Suspension of Customs Broker Licence for Non-Compliance with Mandatory 15-Day Hearing Requirement
  3. ITAT Jodhpur: Penny Stock LTCG Cannot Be Treated as Bogus Merely on General Investigation Report
  4. CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside ₹22.84 Crore Service Tax Demand Against HCL Infosystems
  5. CESTAT Delhi Holds LED Modules Classifiable Under CTH 8539; Rejects Department's Classification Under CTH 9405
  6. Incremental GST burden on pre-GST works contracts is recoverable only from the contracting employer and not from the State or tax authorities
  7. Time Spent in Pursuing Rectification Application under Section 161 of the CGST Act Excludible While Computing Limitation for Filing Appeal under Section 107
  8. Cancellation of GST registration based on defective verification reports fails the statutory test of 'reasons to believe’
  9. Limitation for filing GST appeal runs from the date of actual communication of the order as declared by the dealer unless rebutted by the Revenue through cogent material
  10. Supreme Court: Cruise Operators Eligible for Section 44B Presumptive Taxation; Hospitality Services Do Not Change Nature of ‘Carriage’

View More Judgments »


Trending Online Classes

view all classess

CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members
Pro Member Jai SolankiJai SolankiPro Member JAYDEEP MITRAJAYDEEP MITRAPro Member xavierxavierPro Member Prakash KaduluriPrakash KaduluriPro Member AnoopAnoop
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals

Browse by Category