https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=119076 The central question is whether Rule 96(10) prohibits IGST refund claims for exports when the exporter availed specified notification-based benefits, including where imported principal goods were received for job work under advance authorisation and no consideration was paid for those goods. The rule applies to both goods and services and has been challenged in High Courts, with some courts granting stays; where factual characterisation of the receipt as "supply" is determinative, litigative remedy may be advised for substantial amounts. en-us Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:16:51 +0530 Fri, 24 Jan 2025 10:40:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=119076 The central question is whether Rule 96(10) prohibits IGST refund claims for exports when the exporter availed specified notification-based benefits, including where imported principal goods were received for job work under advance authorisation and no consideration was paid for those goods. The rule applies to both goods and services and has been challenged in High Courts, with some courts granting stays; where factual characterisation of the receipt as "supply" is determinative, litigative remedy may be advised for substantial amounts. Discussion-Forum GST Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:16:51 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=119076