Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Patanjali Foods Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. refund claims based on igst and constitutional challenges. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments hinge on past judgments concerning igst. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's directive to issue the refund. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Uchit N. Sheth for the petitioner and learned Advocate Ms. Hetvi Sancheti for the respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Hetvi Sancheti for the respondents waives service of notice of rule for the respondents.
3. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
4. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 01.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting refund of IGST Paid by the petitioner in view of Entry No.1 of Notification No. 10 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017. It is also prayed to direct the respondent authorities to grant refund of the amount of IGST to the tune of Rs.40,30,715/- which was paid by the petitioner in view of aforesaid Notification. It is the case of the petitioner that b
Refund of IGST is mandated when earlier notifications were found unconstitutional, confirming unavailability of time-bar arguments.
The court emphasized the need for timely refund processing under GST laws, overturning unjust rejection based on procedural grounds.
The court affirmed that an unlawful tax collection obligates the government to refund with interest, reinforcing the principle of unjust enrichment and constitutional mandates under Article 265.
The court held that refund claims for IGST on ocean freight are valid if filed after notifications imposing the levy are struck down as unconstitutional.
Refund applications for taxes paid under a mistake of law are not bound by strict statutory limits when the underlying tax was invalid.
Interest is payable on a tax refund when the tax was collected unlawfully, dating from payment until refund, emphasizing equity and restitution principles.
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....
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
