<?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 (9) TMI 1485 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799459</link>
    <description>Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 ceased to govern pending export refund claims upon its omission because no savings or sunset clause preserved its operation. A prospective recommendation to omit the rule could not independently sustain its application after omission. Consequently, pending refund proceedings remained outside Rule 96(10), and the existing refund direction was unaffected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 08:17:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=924757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 1485 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799459</link>
      <description>Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 ceased to govern pending export refund claims upon its omission because no savings or sunset clause preserved its operation. A prospective recommendation to omit the rule could not independently sustain its application after omission. Consequently, pending refund proceedings remained outside Rule 96(10), and the existing refund direction was unaffected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>