Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules restricted IGST refunds on exports in specified circumstances. The High Court's earlier ruling in M/s Hikal Limited treated the rule as ultra vires section 16 of the IGST Act and manifestly arbitrary. Its subsequent omission without a saving clause meant that proceedings based exclusively on an alleged breach of Rule 96(10) could not continue. Accordingly, a show cause notice seeking to deny or recover an IGST export refund under that rule, along with consequential proceedings, was quashed.
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules restricted IGST refunds on exports in specified circumstances. The High Court's earlier ruling in M/s Hikal Limited treated the rule as ultra vires section 16 of the IGST Act and manifestly arbitrary. Its subsequent omission without a saving clause meant that proceedings based exclusively on an alleged breach of Rule 96(10) could not continue. Accordingly, a show cause notice seeking to deny or recover an IGST export refund under that rule, along with consequential proceedings, was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.