<?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 (5) TMI 356 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791154</link>
    <description>Orders rejecting refund claims relating to zero-rated supplies were set aside because the dispute was identical to an earlier batch involving the same assessee, where the High Court had already directed remand. Following that approach, the matter was sent back to the original authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The substantive entitlement to refund was left open for determination before the authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 356 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791154</link>
      <description>Orders rejecting refund claims relating to zero-rated supplies were set aside because the dispute was identical to an earlier batch involving the same assessee, where the High Court had already directed remand. Following that approach, the matter was sent back to the original authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The substantive entitlement to refund was left open for determination before the authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>