Supreme Court
For assessee
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
9 rulings found
Supreme Court
SLP was filed against impugned order of High Court holding that where refund granted to assessee on export of goods was sought to be demanded under Rule 96(10), since Notification No. 20-2024, dated 8-10-2024 was issued during pendency of appeal filed by assessee against such demand, whereby Rule 96(10) was omitted, proceedings of order in original as well as order passed by appellate authority were to be set aside; instant court held issues were squarely covered by Goodluck India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. and dismissed SLP
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee's refund of tax paid on export of services was rejected under Rule 96, since Rule 96(10) had been omitted without any saving or sunset clause, ongoing restriction could not be maintained and refund could not be denied in view of Supreme Court's decision that proceedings under an omitted rule cannot continue in absence of any saving provision
Gujarat High Court
Where restriction in Rule 96(10) governing IGST refund on exports was omitted without a saving clause and both the SCN and consequential order were issued after such omission, restriction could not survive for pending or subsequent proceedings and related actions were to be quashed in alignment with Goodluck India Ltd. ruling
Gujarat High Court
Where restriction under Rule 96(10) on IGST refund for exports was invoked after its omission without any saving or sunset clause, omission indicated legislative intent to end restriction for pending proceedings, so restriction could not apply and assessee was entitled to refund, rendering impugned communication unsustainable
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner challenged Show Cause Notice and validity of Rule 96(10) regarding refund of integrated tax paid on exports, since Rule 96(10) was struck down in same was and later omitted vide a notification, continuation of proceedings under said rule was unsustainable and all notices and proceedings were to be quashed
Kerala High Court
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
Gujarat High Court
Where rules 89(4B) and 96(10) were omitted by notification without any saving clause, all proceedings including SCNs and orders under those rules lapsed ab initio, making continuation of such proceedings impermissible, thus impugned order in original and subsequent actions were to be quashed and set aside in terms of (Gujarat)
Gujarat High Court
Where exporter omitted to mention IGST payment on rice export consignments in shipping bills due to inadvertence, but actual export and invoices were undisputed and refund claim was otherwise within Rule 96 criteria, entitlement to IGST refund could not be denied merely for omission in shipping bills, and refund was to be processed without requiring adjudication under Section 149 of Customs Act
Madras High Court
Refund of IGST on zero-rated exports could not be rejected solely on basis of Board Circular No. 37/2018, which was struck down as inconsistent with statutory provisions and Rules; rejection without examining claim under governing law was unsustainable, and matter was remanded for re-adjudication