High Court of Kerala30 July 2026

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

For assessee

WP(C) NO. 4778 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

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

Provisions considered

Section 16 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 74 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 96(10) 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.

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

Punjab & Haryana High Court21 Jul 2026

Cvent India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST

Where petitioner, an information technology and IT-enabled services provider, was treated as exporter and granted refund of unutilized input tax credit for same services in periods before and after, rejection of refund for intervening period by classifying petitioner as intermediary without material distinction in services was illegal and arbitrary, so appellate order was set aside

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

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

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

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

Cvent India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST

Read the full analysis