https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783585 Whether refund denial based on alleged breach of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules could be sustained after the omission of Rule 96(10) was held, in a later HC decision, to be without any saving for pending proceedings. The HC held that the adjudicating and appellate authorities lacked the benefit of that binding clarification, which could materially affect the legality of the refund rejection and related proceedings; therefore, without expressing any view on merits, it set aside the impugned orders and remanded the refund application and show cause notice for fresh adjudication after examining the impact of the later HC ruling, directing expeditious disposal within six months. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783585 Whether refund denial based on alleged breach of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules could be sustained after the omission of Rule 96(10) was held, in a later HC decision, to be without any saving for pending proceedings. The HC held that the adjudicating and appellate authorities lacked the benefit of that binding clarification, which could materially affect the legality of the refund rejection and related proceedings; therefore, without expressing any view on merits, it set aside the impugned orders and remanded the refund application and show cause notice for fresh adjudication after examining the impact of the later HC ruling, directing expeditious disposal within six months. Case-Laws GST Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783585