https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789348 A SEZ unit's refund of input tax credit could not be rejected solely because it was the recipient, as the existing High Court ruling on refund claims remained binding while the Supreme Court had kept the question of law open. The authorities were therefore required to examine the claim under the prevailing GST refund framework. However, because the factual question whether the services were used for authorised operations and endorsed by the specified officer had not been decided below, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on that limited issue. The impugned rejection and appellate orders were set aside. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Apr 2026 07:48:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789348 A SEZ unit's refund of input tax credit could not be rejected solely because it was the recipient, as the existing High Court ruling on refund claims remained binding while the Supreme Court had kept the question of law open. The authorities were therefore required to examine the claim under the prevailing GST refund framework. However, because the factual question whether the services were used for authorised operations and endorsed by the specified officer had not been decided below, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on that limited issue. The impugned rejection and appellate orders were set aside. Case-Laws GST Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789348