https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755887 The HC allowed a petition by a 100% EOU that had mistakenly claimed refund under Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 instead of Rule 89. The petitioner exported goods and sought refund of IGST paid on capital goods and inputs. The court held that procedural irregularity should not prevent legitimate export incentives, citing SC precedent that procedures are handmaids of justice. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to authorities to examine exports and grant refund under Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017 per Section 16(3) of IGST Act, 2017. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 May 2025 16:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755887 The HC allowed a petition by a 100% EOU that had mistakenly claimed refund under Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 instead of Rule 89. The petitioner exported goods and sought refund of IGST paid on capital goods and inputs. The court held that procedural irregularity should not prevent legitimate export incentives, citing SC precedent that procedures are handmaids of justice. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to authorities to examine exports and grant refund under Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017 per Section 16(3) of IGST Act, 2017. Case-Laws GST Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755887