https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781858 HC held that the petitioner-unit is an exporter making zero-rated supplies under section 16(1) of the IGST Act, not a deemed exporter, as its suppliers treated their supplies as regular B2B and did not follow deemed export procedures or claim related benefits. Consequently, the petitioner's refund claim of unutilised ITC falls under section 54(3) of the GST Act read with Rule 89(1)/(4), not Rule 89(4A). Para 2.2 of Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 was held inapplicable to such exports, and the appellate authority's reliance on deemed export provisions was found contrary to the statute. The rejection and suo motu review of sanctioned refunds were quashed, and the petition was allowed. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:42:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781858 HC held that the petitioner-unit is an exporter making zero-rated supplies under section 16(1) of the IGST Act, not a deemed exporter, as its suppliers treated their supplies as regular B2B and did not follow deemed export procedures or claim related benefits. Consequently, the petitioner's refund claim of unutilised ITC falls under section 54(3) of the GST Act read with Rule 89(1)/(4), not Rule 89(4A). Para 2.2 of Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 was held inapplicable to such exports, and the appellate authority's reliance on deemed export provisions was found contrary to the statute. The rejection and suo motu review of sanctioned refunds were quashed, and the petition was allowed. Case-Laws GST Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781858