https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789069 A refund claim for IGST on zero-rated exports under Section 16 of the IGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules was rejected without addressing binding judicial decisions relied on by the taxpayer. The Madras HC noted that the impugned order also failed to examine the scope of Circular No. 37/2018 and its interaction with Rule 96, which made the reasoning legally incomplete. The rejection was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with directions to take the relevant decisions into account and grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Apr 2026 08:50:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789069 A refund claim for IGST on zero-rated exports under Section 16 of the IGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules was rejected without addressing binding judicial decisions relied on by the taxpayer. The Madras HC noted that the impugned order also failed to examine the scope of Circular No. 37/2018 and its interaction with Rule 96, which made the reasoning legally incomplete. The rejection was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with directions to take the relevant decisions into account and grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Case-Laws GST Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789069