2025:BHCD-igAitaSlly: s5ig5ne4d47-DB

by MULEY

MULEY SHUBHAM SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO

PRAVINRAO Date:

2025.12.16 35-WP-14854-2023.DOCX

20:45:37 +0530

Shubham

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 14854 OF 2023

Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 14862 OF 2023

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 14860 OF 2023

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 14858 OF 2023

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 14857 OF 2023

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 14855 OF 2023

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 14852 OF 2023

______________________________________________________

Mr. Rahul Thakar a/w Yash Dethe i/by C. B. Thakar for the Petitioner.

Mr. Karan Adik i/by Megha Bajoria for the Respondents.

______________________________________________________

CORAM : M.S. Sonak &

Advait M. Sethna, JJ.

DATED : 09 December 2025

Oral Order:- (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the parties state that a common judgment and order can dispose of these Petitions.

3. Accordingly, we issue Rule in all these Petitions. We make the Rule returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of heat exchangers and other allied products. During its business, the Petitioner imported certain raw materials under the advance authorisation, claiming exemption from the payment of basic customs duty and IGST, relying on the customs notifications dated 1 April 2015 and 13 October 2017.

5. The Petitioners contend that this raw material was used to manufacture finished goods, which were exported from India. For the period between June 2019 and December 2019, the Petitioner made exports on payment of IGST. For this, the Petitioners received a refund of IGST under the relevant provisions of the IGST Act, 2017.

6. The Petitioners claimed that not all finished goods exported outside India included goods manufactured using raw materials imported under advance authorisation. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the Petitioner had availed the benefits of advance authorisation in breach of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

7. Therefore, the Petitioner, to avoid controversy, repaid the refund it had received for the period between June 2019 and December 2019 and from July 2020 to September 2020, amounting to Rs.

2,82,39,137/-, along with applicable interest of Rs. 38,19,915/-.

8. The Petitioner now claims that the amount paid back by them exceeded what was otherwise required to be paid under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Mr Thakar states that this was, in fact, four times more than the amount that would have become payable if Rule 96(10)

were to be applicable and established as violated.

9. Accordingly, the Petitioner applied for a refund on 20 August 2021 under the category of “Excess payment of tax – if any” to the second Respondent. This Application was rejected vide order dated 19 October 2021, following the issuance of a show cause notice dated 1 December 2021 to the Petitioner.

10. The appellate authority rejected the challenge to the 10 October

2021 order. Hence, the present Petitions.

11. During the pendency of these Petitions, this Court, in the case of Hikal Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No.78 of 2025 decided on 11 September 2025) has held that Rule 96(10) was omitted without making any provisions for saving pending proceedings. Mr Thakar therefore submits that the argument about any alleged breach of Rule 96(10) or invocation of Rule 86(4B) of the CGST Rules would no longer be applicable. Accordingly, he proposes that we set aside the impugned orders of the appellate authority and the adjudicating authority, and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for deciding the Petitioner’s refund application dated 20 August 2021 and the show cause notice dated 1 December 2021 afresh.

12. Mr Adik, whilst not agreeing with the contentions of Mr Thakar,