https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794468 AAR jurisdiction did not extend to a request framed as input tax credit admissibility but in substance seeking a ruling on refund entitlement and refund computation under Section 54(3) read with Rule 89(5). The expression "admissibility of input tax credit" was treated as not covering adjudication of refund of accumulated credit, so the questions were outside Section 97(2). The application was also barred because the refund claim had already been rejected by the jurisdictional authority, attracting Section 98(2), which prevents admission of a question already decided in proceedings under the GST law. The application was therefore rejected at the admission stage. en-us Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2026 08:26:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794468 AAR jurisdiction did not extend to a request framed as input tax credit admissibility but in substance seeking a ruling on refund entitlement and refund computation under Section 54(3) read with Rule 89(5). The expression "admissibility of input tax credit" was treated as not covering adjudication of refund of accumulated credit, so the questions were outside Section 97(2). The application was also barred because the refund claim had already been rejected by the jurisdictional authority, attracting Section 98(2), which prevents admission of a question already decided in proceedings under the GST law. The application was therefore rejected at the admission stage. Case-Laws GST Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794468