Mayur IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5312 OF 2024 Altisource Business Solutions India Pvt Ltd ...Petitioner Versus Union Of India ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION(ST) NO. 1807 OF 2025 Altisources Business Solutions India Pvt Ltd ...Petitioner Versus Union Of India ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION(ST) NO. 37613 OF 2024 Altisource Business Solutions India Pvt Ltd ...Petitioner Versus Union Of India ...Respondent _____________________________________________________ Mr. Tushar Jarwal, Rahul Sateja, Daliya Singh, for Petitioners.

Ms. Shruti Vyas, a/w Adv. Abhishek R. Mishra, for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Amar Mishra, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in WP No.

5312 of 2024.

Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in WP No. 1807 of 2025.

Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

______________________________________________________

CORAM : M.S. Sonak &

Advait M. Sethna, JJ.

DATED : 30 September 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.S. Sonak,J) .:-

1. Heard Mr Tushar Jarwal, who appears with Mr Rahul Sateja and Ms Daliya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Vyas, who appears with Mr Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1, and Ms Chavan, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the parties agree that a common order can be passed in these writ petitions, as they involve substantially similar issues of law and fact. They request that Writ Petition No. 5312 of 2024 be taken up as the lead petition.

4. In the lead petition, the petitioners, through their application dated April 23, 2020, sought a refund of Rs. 2,85,63,804 for the export of software development services, which, according to the petitioners, were not subject to GST. By order dated September 14, 2020, the adjudicating authority rejected the petitioners' application for a refund. The petitioners then filed an appeal on 14^th December 2020, which the Appellate Authority allowed by its order dated 27^th October 2023 and directed a refund. Based on this order, the petitioners applied for a refund on November 28, 2023, which was sanctioned on January 15, 2024, and the amounts were refunded on February 5, 2024. However, no interest was paid on such a refund.

5. The petitioner contended that there was a delay of 1232 days from the expiry of 60 days from the date of the original refund application dated 23^rd April 2020, and therefore, interest at the rate of 6% per annum as is statutorily provided should have been paid from the refund amount.

6. By the impugned order dated 09^th September 2024, this claim for interest was rejected by reasoning that since the refund was made within 60 days of the petitioner’s refund application dated 28^th November 2023, pursuant to Appellate Authority order’s dated 27^th October 2023, there was no question of any interest payable under the provisions of Section 54 read with Section 56 of the CGST Act.

7. Mr. Jarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the reasoning in the impugned order is entirely contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts in the following decisions: -

i) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. Union of India and Others ;1 ii) Lupin Limited vs. Union of India & Ors; 2 iii) Bansal International vs. Commissioner of DGST; 3 iv) SBI Cards & payment Services Ltd. vs. Union of India;4

1. (2011) 273 E.L.T. (S.C.).

2. Order dated 5th August 2025 in WP No. 610 of 2024.

3. (2023 13 Centax 210 (Del.)

4. 2023 (72) G.S.T.L. 174 (P&H.).

v) Qualcom India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC),5

8. Mr. Jarwal has laid emphasis on the decision of this Court in Lupin Limited (supra), where, in almost identical circumstances, the contention on behalf of the revenue was rejected, and interest was directed to be paid from the date of the expiry of 60 days from the original refun