<?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 (8) TMI 1688 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797814</link>
    <description>Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a savings clause operates retrospectively, including for pending refund-recovery proceedings. The omitted rule cannot support continuing recovery action merely because proceedings were initiated before its omission. Pending refund-recovery matters require reconsideration on the basis that Rule 96(10) has ceased to apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:28:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=919300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1688 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797814</link>
      <description>Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a savings clause operates retrospectively, including for pending refund-recovery proceedings. The omitted rule cannot support continuing recovery action merely because proceedings were initiated before its omission. Pending refund-recovery matters require reconsideration on the basis that Rule 96(10) has ceased to apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>