The GSTAT Lucknow Bench has dismissed Revenue’s appeals and upheld the First Appellate Authority’s order directing sanction of supplementary ITC refund claims totalling approximately Rs. 5.71 crores filed by an edible oil manufacturer under the amended Rule 89(5) formula, holding that the amendment made by Notification No. 14/2022-CT dated 05.07.2022 (incorporating input service ITC in the refund computation) is curative and clarificatory in nature, following the Gujarat HC’s ruling in Ascent Meditech Ltd. (whose SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28.03.2025). The ruling by Member (Judicial) Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Member (Technical) Arvind Kumar in APL/9/LCK/2026 (Commissioner v. M/s B.L. Agro Industries, decided 17.09.2026) addresses five companion appeals for the periods October 2019 to September 2020.
The Tribunal held that there is no statutory bar against filing a supplementary/differential refund claim, provided it is filed within the limitation period under Section 54, following the Gujarat HC’s ruling in Renuka Sugar Ltd. The restriction under Notification No. 09/2022-CT (Rate) effective 18.07.2022 for edible oils (Chapter 15) cannot be extended through a circular to deny refund of ITC accumulated prior to the notification’s effective date. On limitation, the COVID exclusion period (01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) under Notification No. 13/2022-CT was correctly applied. The Revenue’s reliance on Circular 181/2022 was rejected, as a circular cannot override the statutory provisions per Ratan Melting (SC).
- 2026-juristway.com-2571-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST | GSTAT Lucknow Bench | APL/9/LCK/2026 | 17.09.2026