<?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 (6) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793240</link>
    <description>An administrative circular cannot prevail over Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Madras HC held that rejection of a duty drawback or IGST refund claim based on Circular No. 37/2018-Customs could not stand where the dispute had to be decided under the statutory rule. The rejection order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving the claimant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 11:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906423" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793240</link>
      <description>An administrative circular cannot prevail over Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Madras HC held that rejection of a duty drawback or IGST refund claim based on Circular No. 37/2018-Customs could not stand where the dispute had to be decided under the statutory rule. The rejection order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving the claimant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>