ORDER : 1. These petitions are filed calling in question the orders in appeal under the provisions of Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the 'CGST Act) as also the rejection of refund applications filed under Section 54 of the CGST Act read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules. The details of such orders called in question in these petitions are as follows: Writ Petition No. Order No. Date 7826/2022 Order in Appeal No. 221/2021-22/JC-AII/GST 07.02.2022 23144/2021 Refund Rejection Order Nos.06/2021-22(Final)ND-8-GST Refunds and 20/2021-22 (Final)ND-8GST Refunds 25.04.2021 and 20.05.2021 5077/2022 Refund Rejection Order No. Nil/2021-22(Final)ND-8 26.10.2021 2. Sri. Ravi Raghavan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's claim for refund of Input Tax Credit [ITC] is rejected for the reason that the petitioner has sought such refund under the provisions of Rule 95A and the Circular No. 106/25/2019/GST dated 29.06.2019, and the petitioner's claim for reversal of ITC, an additional question that is canvassed in W.P.No. 23144/2021, is also rejected overlooking the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sandeep Patil v. Union of India 2019-VIL-495-BOM, and other decisions. During the pendency of this writ petition, the relevant provision of Rule 95A of the CGST Rules is omitted retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2019 and the Circular dated 29.06.2019 is also withdrawn based on the Council's recommendation and in this regard, he draws this Court's attention to the Paragraph-14 of the Recommendations: "14. Supplies from duty free Shops (DFS) at international terminal to outgoing international passengers to be treated as exports by DFS and consequential refund benefit to be available to them on such supplies. Rule 95A of the CGST Rules, Circular No. 106/25/2019-GST dated 29.06.2019 and related notification to be rescinded accordingly." 3. Sri. Ravi Raghavan submits that consequentially the impugned orders will have to be quashed and restored for reconsideration. Sri. Amit Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondent, does not dispute the premise in which the refund is sought for and he emphasizes that all questions otherwise may be left open for consideration including the consideration of the petitioner's prayer for reversal of ITC based on the decision in Sandeep Patil, supra. 4. For the foregoing, the writ petitions are allowed quashing the aforesaid impugned orders and restoring the proceedings for reconsideration leaving open all contentions by both the parties.