https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784117 The dominant issue was whether the tax authority could re-initiate proceedings under s.73 to recover alleged erroneous ITC refund for exports when an appellate order had already finally adjudicated the refund entitlement on the same facts. Relying on s.107(16), the HC held the appellate order was final and binding absent any variation or reversal, attracting res judicata/issue estoppel and estopping the authority from reopening the settled refund issue; re-adjudication was therefore unconscionable. The HC also held that administrative action contrary to the authority's independent judgment and in breach of natural justice is amenable to interference under Art. 226. Consequently, the show cause notice and summary notice were quashed and the writ was allowed. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784117 The dominant issue was whether the tax authority could re-initiate proceedings under s.73 to recover alleged erroneous ITC refund for exports when an appellate order had already finally adjudicated the refund entitlement on the same facts. Relying on s.107(16), the HC held the appellate order was final and binding absent any variation or reversal, attracting res judicata/issue estoppel and estopping the authority from reopening the settled refund issue; re-adjudication was therefore unconscionable. The HC also held that administrative action contrary to the authority's independent judgment and in breach of natural justice is amenable to interference under Art. 226. Consequently, the show cause notice and summary notice were quashed and the writ was allowed. Case-Laws GST Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784117