SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Sikk) 87

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM AT GANGTOK
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.
SICPA India Private Limited and Another – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 54 of 2023
Decided On : 10-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ankit Kanodia, Passang Tshering Bhutia
For the Respondent: Sangita Pradhan

The balance of unutilized input tax credit remaining in an electronic ledger upon the permanent closure of a business is refundable, as the law does not expressly prohibit such claims, and the state cannot retain taxpayer funds without the authority of law, despite the absence of an explicit statutory provision.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Jurisdiction of High Court - Availability of alternative remedy - Mere existence of a statutory appeal does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court - The power under the constitutional provision is plenary in nature - The rule requiring the pursuit of an alternative remedy is a matter of policy, convenience, and judicial discretion rather than an absolute rule of law. (Paras 7.1, 7.2)

(B) Goods and Services Tax - Unutilized Input Tax Credit - Refund on business closure - Provisions permitting refund of the balance in the electronic credit ledger after the settlement of all liabilities - Where the governing statute contains no express prohibition against the recovery of unutilized credits upon the cessation of business operations, administrative authorities cannot deny such claims based on restricted categories of refunds - Excess tax cannot be retained by the state without the authority of law. (Paras 8, 9, 9.1)

Facts of the case:
A business entity discontinued its operations and sought a refund of the accumulated unutilized input tax credit lying in its electronic credit ledger. The tax authorities rejected the refund application, arguing that the legislation only explicitly permitted specific categories of refunds which did not include the closure of business as a ground for entitlement.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that while the legislation provides specific circumstances for claiming refunds, it does not contain an express prohibition against recovering the balance of unutilized tax credits upon the permanent closure of an entity. The court highlighted the principle that the state is not entitled to retain tax funds without the proper sanction of law.

Issues: The main issues were whether the balance in the electronic credit ledger upon the permanent closure of a business is refundable under the law and whether the omission of "business closure" as a specific ground in the refund provision creates an absolute bar to such a claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to claim a refund of unutilized tax credits upon the final closure of a business is maintainable, as the governing framework lacks an explicit prohibition against such refunds, and the state cannot retain funds in the absence of a clear statutory mandate.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 7)
2. inherent right to refund of unutilized itc upon closure. (Para 8 , 9)
3. setting aside impugned order allowing petitioner's claim. (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.

1. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and Central Excise, Gangtok Division, Gangtok, Sikkim, vide Order dated 08-02-2022, rejected the refund application filed by the Petitioners, claiming unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC), lying in Electronic Credit Ledger amounting to Rs. 4,37,61,402/- (Rupees four crores, thirty seven lakhs, sixty one thousand, four hundred and two) only, upon discontinuance of business:

(i) The Petitioners were before the Additional Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Siliguri Appeals Commissionerate, assailing the same.

2. The Appellate Authority, vide Order dated 22-03-2023, upheld the Order dated 08-02-2022, of the Assistant Commissioner (supra). It was reasoned that on a combined reading of Sections 54(3) and 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, the “CGST Act”), it is evident that the current regulations do not provide for refund of unutilized ITC in case of discontinuation or closure of business. That, it is evidently clear from the provisions mandated in Section 54(3) of the CGST Act which is restricted to circumstances under which the unutilized ITC is allowed for refund, discontinuation/closure is not one of them.

3. In the instant Petition, the prayers put forth inter alia are to quash, delete and set aside the impugned Order dated 22- 03-2023, passed by the Respondent No.3 rejecting the claim for refund of unutilized ITC, on closure of its business. Further, to order that, proviso to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act is not applicable in respect of refund of unutilized balance of ITC under Section 49(6) of the CGST Act.

4. The Petitioners case summarized is that, it was engaged in the business of manufacturing security inks and solutions with GST registration in the State of Sikkim. The manufacturing units of the Petitioners were in full operation in the pre-GST regime. The Petitioners in January, 2019, decided to discontinue its operation in the State of Sikkim, pursuant to which the Petitioners sold all the machineries and manufacturing facilities from April, 2019 to March, 2020. At the time of sale of assets the Petitioners had appropriately reversed the ITC as per the applicable provisions under the GST law. The Petitioners had accumulated balance of ITC amounting to Rs. 4,37,61,402/- (Rupees four crores, thirty seven lakhs, sixty one thousand, four hundred and two) only, on account of the closure of its business and accordingly claimed refund of such unutilized ITC balance, in terms of Section 49(6) of the CGST Act, which entails that the balance in Electronic Credit Ledger after payment of tax, penalty, fee or in every amount payable may be refunded in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, which was refused as reflected supra and has given rise to this Petition:

(i) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Section 49(6) of the CGST Act provides for refund of the balance in Electronic Cash Ledger and Electronic Credit Ledger after payment of tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act which lays down the procedure for refund. Section 54(3) of the CGST Act is the exception carved out in the provision, which requires that a registered company may claim refund of unutilized ITC at the end of any tax period, provided that, no refund of unutilized ITC shall be allowed except as provided in Section 54(3)(i) and (ii) of the CGST Act. It is contended that the said exemption cannot take away the vested right of ITC accrued to the Petitioners and refund thereof under Section 49(6) of the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority has failed to discuss as to why the provisions of Section 49(6) is not applicable in the Petitioners case. To buttre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top