Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
The ruling in brief
Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions (P.) Ltd. filed writs before the Madras High Court (WP 10053–10056/2026, 8 June 2026) against orders treating SEZ unit supplies and services for authorized operations as not zero-rated because Letter of Undertaking and SEZ Certificate were not on record, under IGST Section 16 and Rule 96A. Refunds or benefits of zero rating were denied across multiple tax periods. During proceedings the assessee offered documents for verification. The court set aside adjudication orders and remanded to enable submission and verification as Section 16 requires. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. SEZ developers and units facing refund denial for documentary gaps may secure remand where willingness to produce LOU and SEZ certificate is demonstrated rather than refusing zero rating outright.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- IGST S.16 — IGST S.16 as considered in the ruling.
- CGST Rules R.96A — Rule 96A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
Source documents
Similar rulings
See the decision
Cvent India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST
Cvent India (P.) Ltd., an IT and IT-enabled services provider, filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP 22461/2023, 21 July 2026) against rejection of refund of unutilized input tax credit for an intervening period while refunds for earlier and later periods were allowed when it was treated as an exporter. IGST Sections 2, 13 and 16 and CGST Section 54 framed place-of-supply and refund issues. The department reclassified the petitioner as intermediary for the disputed period without material distinction in services rendered. The court found that action illegal and arbitrary, set aside the appellate order and restored equitable refund treatment. Outcome favoured the assessee on merits of classification consistency. Export-oriented IT companies should ensure uniform characterization across periods to avoid selective intermediary denial of Section 54 refunds.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Fives Call - KCP Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Customs
Fives Call-KCP Ltd. filed before the Madras High Court (WP 30288/2023, 29 June 2026) against rejection of IGST refund on zero-rated exports. The department relied on Board Circular No. 37/2018, which the court noted was struck down as inconsistent with IGST Sections 16 and 20 and CGST Rule 96. Rejection without examining the claim under governing statute and rules was unsustainable. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication on merits under proper legal standards, including verification of shipping bills and refund application. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. Exporters should cite this when refunds are denied solely on circular grounds after judicial invalidation of restrictive CBIC guidance, ensuring adjudicators apply Section 16 and Rule 96 rather than obsolete circular tests.
In favour of the revenue
Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax
Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. appealed to the GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Appeal Nos. APL 2 to 7 (PB) of 2026, 4 June 2026), concerning fees paid to Dow Europe GmbH under a procurement support agreement for vendor identification and negotiation. The issue was intermediary versus import of services, place of supply under IGST Sections 2 and 13, and refund under Section 54 CGST read with Rule 89. The Tribunal found Dow Europe acted independently without authority to bind the Indian company; the supply was import of services with place of supply in India, IGST payable on reverse charge, and export-refund style claims rightly rejected. Outcome favoured revenue. Procurement support without binding agency is unlikely to qualify as intermediary services.
In favour of the assessee
MAC Industry v. Union of India
MAC Industry challenged refund denial before the High Court of Gujarat (R/Special Civil Application No. 1693 of 2026, decided 3 September 2026) under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules restricting IGST refund on exports. The show cause notice and consequential order were issued after Rule 96(10) was omitted from the rules without a saving clause. Relying on IGST Section 16, CGST Section 54, Rule 96, and the Gujarat High Court decision in Goodluck India Ltd., the court held the restriction could not survive for pending or subsequent proceedings. Related SCN and orders were quashed. Outcome favoured the assessee. Omission of a restrictive rule without savings typically ends its application to new adjudication. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Nuvteq Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-5)
Nuvteq Solutions (P.) Ltd. challenged denial of export-of-services refund before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 16115 of 2026, 10 June 2026). Adjudication and appellate orders rejected eligibility solely for alleged non-furnishing of Letter of Undertaking under Section 54 and Rule 96A, without examining transaction nature or whether LUT was in fact furnished. Both orders were quashed and remanded for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and refund entitlement based on actual LUT compliance and export evidence. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Export service providers should maintain LUT filings and reconcile with refund rejections on merits, not bare procedural labels. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-10, High Court of Karnataka recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WRIT PETITION NO. 16115 OF 2026 (T-RES). Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST S.54, CGST Rules R.96A. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.