Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
M/s Merck Life Science Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Delhi – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 27259, 27261, 27552, 27691, 28151 of 2024
Decided On : 07-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks judicial remedies (Para 1 , 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim for igst refund based on erroneous payment (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal arguments regarding refund application legitimacy (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's reasoning against respondents' limitations on refund (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. judicial orders to set aside prior decisions and remand for action (Para 24) |
ORDER :
1. In W.P.No.27259/2024, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and set aside the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.3 vide Order No. 31/2024-25 dated 27.05.2024 in Annexure-B as bad in law.
b) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and to hold that the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No. 3 vide Order No. 31/2024-25 dated 27.05.2024 in Annexure-B was passed without the authority of law and without jurisdiction.
c) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and to hold that the action of the Respondent No. 3 is retaining or withholding the IGST of Rs. 52,63,596/- is without authority of law and against the Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
d) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus by ordering the Respondent No. 3 to refund the IGST of Rs.52,63,596/- paid during the GSTR-3B return filed for the month of November 2017 along with interest.
e) Issue any other direction or grant any other relief, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice.
f) Issue a direction to provide for the cost of this petition.
In W.P.No.27261/2024, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and set aside the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.3 vide Order No. 29/2024-25 dated 25.05.2024 in Annexure- B as bad in law.
b) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and to hold that the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No. 3 vide Order No. 29/2024-25 dated 25.05.2024 in Annexure-B was passed without the authority of law and without jurisdiction.
c) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and to hold that the action of the Respondent No. 3 is retaining or withholding the IGST of Rs. 82,91,091/- is without authority of law and against the Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
d) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus by ordering the Respondent No. 3 to refund the IGST of Rs.82,91,091/- paid during the GSTR-3B return filed for the month of July 2017 along with interest.
e) Issue any other direction or grant any other relief, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice.
f) Issue a direction to provide for the cost of this petition.
In W.P.No.27552/2024, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and set aside the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.3 vide Order No. 30/2024-25 dated 27.05.2024 in Annexure- B as bad in law.
b) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and to hold that the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No. 3 vide Order No. 30/2024-25 dated 27.05.2024 in Annexure-B was passed without the authority of law and without jurisdiction.
c) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and to hold that the action of the Respondent No. 3 is retaining or withholding the IGST of Rs. 69,88,339/- is without authority of law and against the Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
d) Issue a writ of
The court ruled that the denial of a tax refund on grounds of limitation was wrong, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment, and clarified that the time limit of two years for refund applicati....
The court established that the limitation period for refund applications under the CGST Act is determined by the original filing date, not subsequent deficiencies.
The filing of an application for refund in the prescribed form and manner stops the running of the limitation period, even if further documents or clarifications are sought by the proper officer.
The court held that a refund application filed within the statutory period cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation, and the applicant must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before any reject....
Voluntary payments made under a mistake are not subject to the limitation period for refund claims under Section 54(1) of the GST Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
