https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440734 Refund rejection of zero-rated supply claims could not be sustained where no notice under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules was issued before disallowance, because the claimant was deprived of the opportunity to respond to the proposed grounds of rejection. The appellate order was also unsustainable as it gave no clear, reasoned basis for invoking Section 17(5)(b) of the CGST Act or for denying input tax credit claims, including CAM and catering charges. The refund rejection and appellate orders were set aside to that extent, and the matter was remitted for fresh notice and reconsideration in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 19 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Apr 2025 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440734 Refund rejection of zero-rated supply claims could not be sustained where no notice under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules was issued before disallowance, because the claimant was deprived of the opportunity to respond to the proposed grounds of rejection. The appellate order was also unsustainable as it gave no clear, reasoned basis for invoking Section 17(5)(b) of the CGST Act or for denying input tax credit claims, including CAM and catering charges. The refund rejection and appellate orders were set aside to that extent, and the matter was remitted for fresh notice and reconsideration in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Wed, 19 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440734