2026 (4) TMI 138 - HC - GST

IGST refund on zero-rated exports remanded after authority ignored binding decisions and the Rule 96-circular issue.

A refund claim for IGST on zero-rated exports under Section 16 of the IGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules was rejected without addressing binding ... Rejection of the claim for IGST refund - Failure to consider binding precedent - Non-application of mind - trade of auto mobile parts registered with DGFT vide IEC No.0412030438 With the introduction of GST, exports were treated as zero-rate supplies in terms of Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017 - Reasonable opportunity of hearing. Failure to consider binding precedent - Non-application of mind - HELD THAT: - This Court is inclined to set aside and remand the matter back to the respondent authority to reconsider and pass orders afresh keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Numinous impex [2022 (4) TMI 760 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Carbolase [2025 (3) TMI 248 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also open to the petitioner to submit additional documents and it is also open to the petitioner to place reliance on any judgment including Carbolase and any other documents in support of their claim of refund. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, keeping in view the decisions referred to by the Court. Final Conclusion: The Court set aside the order rejecting the IGST refund claim on the ground that the authority had not considered the relevant judgments cited before it. The matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner and in the light of the law laid down by this Court. Issues: Whether the rejection of the claim for IGST refund could be sustained when the authority did not consider the binding judicial decisions relied upon by the petitioner.Analysis: The refund claim arose in the context of export of goods treated as zero-rated supplies under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with refund sought under Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner had also relied upon earlier decisions explaining the scope of Circular No. 37/2018 dated 09.10.2018 and the relationship between the circular and Rule 96. The order impugned before the Court did not contain any finding dealing with those decisions, and the absence of consideration of the controlling legal position warranted interference.Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after taking into account the relevant decisions and affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.Final Conclusion: The refund claim was not finally adjudicated on merits, and the authority was directed to reconsider the matter afresh.