https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421528 The HC allowed the petition and held that suppliers who invoiced common services to the petitioner's Head Office could not claim refunds under IGST s.16(3)(b) or CGST s.54(3)/Rule 89, since such supplies to the Head Office were not zero-rated and tax incidence was not shown to have been passed to the SEZ/EOU. However, the court found no merit in the respondent's denial of the petitioner's refund of unutilized input tax credit attributable to zero-rated supplies to the SEZ and set aside the impugned order, granting the petitioner the contested refund. en-us Tue, 08 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421528 The HC allowed the petition and held that suppliers who invoiced common services to the petitioner's Head Office could not claim refunds under IGST s.16(3)(b) or CGST s.54(3)/Rule 89, since such supplies to the Head Office were not zero-rated and tax incidence was not shown to have been passed to the SEZ/EOU. However, the court found no merit in the respondent's denial of the petitioner's refund of unutilized input tax credit attributable to zero-rated supplies to the SEZ and set aside the impugned order, granting the petitioner the contested refund. Case-Laws GST Tue, 08 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421528