https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783272 HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the department could not withhold IGST refund on the ground of alleged excess ITC without initiating proper recovery proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act. A notice under Rule 92(3) cannot be deployed as a substitute for a show-cause notice to deny refund when no discrepancy exists in the refund claim. The audit report disclosed no wrongful ITC for FY 2019-20, and any demands for other periods had already been raised and deposited. Finding no justifiable basis for non-grant of refund and violation of principles of natural justice, HC set aside the impugned order and directed refund. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:55:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783272 HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the department could not withhold IGST refund on the ground of alleged excess ITC without initiating proper recovery proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act. A notice under Rule 92(3) cannot be deployed as a substitute for a show-cause notice to deny refund when no discrepancy exists in the refund claim. The audit report disclosed no wrongful ITC for FY 2019-20, and any demands for other periods had already been raised and deposited. Finding no justifiable basis for non-grant of refund and violation of principles of natural justice, HC set aside the impugned order and directed refund. Case-Laws GST Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783272