https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783825 Refund of IGST could not be rejected solely because Bond/LUT was not furnished before export where exports were otherwise established and the defect was capable of ex post facto compliance under the 15.03.2018 circular issued under the CGST Act. The Karnataka HC held that the authority had treated the requirement as an absolute bar without considering the circular, and that such rejection could not stand on that basis alone. The refund refusal was set aside and the application was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law and the circular. en-us Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783825 Refund of IGST could not be rejected solely because Bond/LUT was not furnished before export where exports were otherwise established and the defect was capable of ex post facto compliance under the 15.03.2018 circular issued under the CGST Act. The Karnataka HC held that the authority had treated the requirement as an absolute bar without considering the circular, and that such rejection could not stand on that basis alone. The refund refusal was set aside and the application was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law and the circular. Case-Laws GST Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783825