https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445883 HC held that a DTA unit supplying to SEZ is entitled to refund of IGST paid under Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act once goods have entered the SEZ and endorsements are obtained, regardless of delay attributable to the AO. Denial of refund on grounds of endorsements not being issued within 45 days, being "inappropriate," or not mentioning "authorized operations" was held unsustainable, particularly as the "authorized operations" requirement applies only prospectively from 01.10.2023. The HC further held that limitation could not be invoked where applications were filed within two years and no deficiency memo under Rule 90(3) was issued, and that mismatch in endorsement dates was a curable technical defect. The impugned refund rejection orders were set aside and the petition allowed. en-us Mon, 06 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2025 14:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445883 HC held that a DTA unit supplying to SEZ is entitled to refund of IGST paid under Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act once goods have entered the SEZ and endorsements are obtained, regardless of delay attributable to the AO. Denial of refund on grounds of endorsements not being issued within 45 days, being "inappropriate," or not mentioning "authorized operations" was held unsustainable, particularly as the "authorized operations" requirement applies only prospectively from 01.10.2023. The HC further held that limitation could not be invoked where applications were filed within two years and no deficiency memo under Rule 90(3) was issued, and that mismatch in endorsement dates was a curable technical defect. The impugned refund rejection orders were set aside and the petition allowed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 06 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445883