https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771455 Bombay HC quashed a refund recovery order dated 10.07.2024 against a 100% EOU for procedural violations. The Revenue sought to recover Rs. 6,88,11,571/- refund claimed under Rule 96(10) CGST Rules, 2017, alleging wrongful availment due to simultaneous benefit of Customs notifications. The court found the officer drew conclusions without issuing mandatory show cause notice under Section 73 CGST Act. HC directed Revenue to follow proper procedure by issuing show cause notice, allowing petitioner opportunity for representation before adjudication, keeping validity and applicability of Rule 96(10) open for consideration. en-us Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jun 2025 20:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771455 Bombay HC quashed a refund recovery order dated 10.07.2024 against a 100% EOU for procedural violations. The Revenue sought to recover Rs. 6,88,11,571/- refund claimed under Rule 96(10) CGST Rules, 2017, alleging wrongful availment due to simultaneous benefit of Customs notifications. The court found the officer drew conclusions without issuing mandatory show cause notice under Section 73 CGST Act. HC directed Revenue to follow proper procedure by issuing show cause notice, allowing petitioner opportunity for representation before adjudication, keeping validity and applicability of Rule 96(10) open for consideration. Case-Laws GST Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771455