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 judicial decisions relied on by the taxpayer. The Madras HC noted that the impugned order also failed to examine the scope of Circular No. 37/2018 and its interaction with Rule 96, which made the reasoning legally incomplete. The rejection was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with directions to take the relevant decisions into account and grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

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.

---