CGST Compensation Cess Refund—Tata Steel vs Jharkhand | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

CGST compensation cess refund
Case Details: TATA Steel Ltd. versus State of Jharkhand (2025) 29 Centax 152 (Jhar.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ. & Deepak Roshan, J.
  • Shri Salona Mittal & Ms Amrita Singh, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • S/Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. Adv. & Aditya Kumar, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee had paid Compensation Cess under the provisions of the CGST Act. After making the payment, the assessee filed an application for a refund of the paid cess, submitting the required documents as per the statutory requirements. The department, after reviewing the refund application, issued a show cause notice proposing to reject the refund. The reasons for the proposed rejection included the non-furnishing of a receipt of payment, proof of export, declaration of non-prosecution, and certain other documents. In response, the assessee filed a detailed reply, asserting that the required documents had either already been submitted or were not necessary under the legal framework. Despite this, the department rejected the refund application, maintaining the same grounds mentioned in the show cause notice. The assessee then filed an appeal against this rejection. However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision to reject the refund. Consequently, the assessee filed a petition before the Jharkhand High Court.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble High Court held that the rejection of the refund was based on extraneous grounds not supported by the CGST Act and its rules. The Court observed that proof of payment was only required for the export of services, not goods, and that a reconciliation statement, already annexed to the refund application, sufficed. Additionally, the insistence on proof of export within 90 days was found to be contrary to a 2019 circular issued by the department. The Court ruled that all grounds for rejecting the refund were beyond the statutory requirements. As a result, the Court set aside the rejection order and the appellate order, directing the GST department to issue the refund along with interest to the assessee within 12 weeks.

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
GST Cancellation Set Aside Due to Vague SCN | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

July 21, 2025

Rule 96(10) Proceedings Quashed Post Omission | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

July 21, 2025

GST Portal to Enable ASP Access Alerts and Consent Revocation

GST • News • Statutory Scope

July 19, 2025

SC Sets Aside Bail as Accused Appropriated and Reprobated Terms

GST • News • Case Chronicles

July 19, 2025

Goods Shed Services Taxable at 18% GST | Not Composite—AAR

GST • News • Case Chronicles

July 18, 2025

GSTN Enables Appeal Filing and Appeal Restoration for SPL-07 Orders

GST • News • Statutory Scope

July 18, 2025

Revenue Must Consider IGST ITC on Branch Transfer | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

July 17, 2025

No GST on Assignment of Leasehold Rights in Immovable Property | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

July 16, 2025

HC Quashes ECL Blocking Order Passed Without Hearing

GST • News • Case Chronicles

July 15, 2025

Bail Granted in Bogus Supply Tax Evasion Case | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

July 15, 2025