2026 (1) TMI 1333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Decisions)<br>Dated:- 21-1-2026<br>WRIT PETITION NOs: 28622, 28632 & 28708 of 2025 - -<br>GST<br>HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Counsel for the Petitioner: Karan Talwar. Counsel for the Respondent(S): Santhi Chandra, GP For Commercial Tax. ORDER PER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO 1. The petitioner imports edible oil and supp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issues are being disposed of, by way of this common order. 3. Heard Sri Karan Talwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. N. Santhi Chandra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to paragraph No. 12 of the order in appeal. The appellate authority, in this paragraph, recor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. Smt. N. Santhi Chandra, the learned Standing Counsel would contend that the modification of the formula is not retrospective and the same cannot be relied upon, by the petitioner, inasmuch as both the original orders of rejection and the appellate orders had been passed even before the amendment to the formula. The learned Standing Counsel would also rely upon the Circular No. 181/13/2022-G....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....la in Rule 89(5) has to be treated to be clarificatory in nature and consequently would be retrospective. In the present case, though the orders of rejection as well as the appellate order were passed prior to the amendment, the fact remains that the petitioner had continued to agitate his claims in regard to the refund sought by the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are....