Zero-rated supply refund disputes were remanded for fresh consideration after the High Court followed its earlier identical decision.

Orders rejecting refund claims relating to zero-rated supplies were set aside because the dispute was identical to an earlier batch involving the same assessee, where the High Court had already directed remand. Following that approach, the matter was sent back to the original authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The substantive entitlement to refund was left open for determination before the authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders rejecting the petitioner's claim for refund relating to zero-rated supplies were liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The dispute was identical to an earlier batch involving the same assessee, where the High Court had already set aside the adverse orders and remanded the matter to the original authority. In view of that earlier decision, and since the parties did not dispute the identity of the issue, the Court followed the same course without entering into a fresh merits determination. The matter was directed to be reconsidered by the original authority in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the refund matters were remanded for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded to the extent of securing a remand for reconsideration of the refund claims, leaving the substantive entitlement open before the original authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an identical refund dispute has already been remanded in a prior batch and the parties do not dispute parity of facts, the same course of remand and fresh adjudication after hearing should follow.

---