High Court of Madras8 June 2026

Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

For assesseeRemanded

W.P. (MD) NOS.10053 TO 10056 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where SEZ unit's supplies and services for authorised operations were treated as not zero-rated due to non-production of Letter of Undertaking and SEZ Certificate, but required documents were offered for verification during proceedings, adjudication orders were set aside and matter remanded to enable submission and verification of such documents as per Section 16 of IGST Act

Provisions considered

Section 16 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 96A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Madras High Court18 Sept 2026

For assessee

McKinsey Global Services India Pvt ltd. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals II)

Where SEZ Unit's refund claim for unutilized input tax credit under Section 54 read with Rule 89 and Section 16 was rejected on ground refund provisions applied only to suppliers to SEZ, Rule 89(1) did not restrict such claims to suppliers, and SEZ Unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilized ITC in accordance with law

Madras High Court11 Aug 2026

For assessee

Wipro Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner

Where SEZ unit exported information technology services on payment of IGST after utilising ITC distributed through ISD mechanism, it was held entitled to claim refund under zero-rated supply provisions as proviso restricting refund to supplier applied only to direct supplies to SEZ and petitioner qualified for zero-rated refund route

Kerala High Court30 Jul 2026

For assessee

Ranjith Lal. S. v. Assistant Commissioner Central Tax & Central Excise

Where assessment and tax demand for zero rated supply were finalized solely based on Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, which had been declared ultra vires Section 16 of IGST Act, such assessment and summary lacked legal foundation and could not be sustained, requiring quashing of impugned orders

Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

McKinsey Global Services India Pvt ltd. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals II)

Wipro Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner

Ranjith Lal. S. v. Assistant Commissioner Central Tax & Central Excise

Read the full analysis