<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (1) TMI 1144 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785388</link>
    <description>Refund claims for IGST paid on ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism were contested on limitation and admissibility grounds; the appellate orders directions to verify limitation were unnecessary and the adjudicating order was quashed for failure to afford opportunity of hearing. The impugned administrative order was set aside and the adjudicating authority was directed to process the refund application filed in the prescribed form for the relevant period and to pay consequential interest at the specified rate. The writ challenge succeeded because procedural fairness was not observed and limitation observations by the appellate authority were inappropriate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:17:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=880453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1144 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785388</link>
      <description>Refund claims for IGST paid on ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism were contested on limitation and admissibility grounds; the appellate orders directions to verify limitation were unnecessary and the adjudicating order was quashed for failure to afford opportunity of hearing. The impugned administrative order was set aside and the adjudicating authority was directed to process the refund application filed in the prescribed form for the relevant period and to pay consequential interest at the specified rate. The writ challenge succeeded because procedural fairness was not observed and limitation observations by the appellate authority were inappropriate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785388</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>