CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
M/S ADANI WILMAR LIMITED AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX LARGE TAXPRAYER UNIT WEST BENGAL AND ORS – Respondent
WPA 27066 / 2024
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
WPA 27066 of 2024
M/s. Adani Wilmer Limited & Anr.
v.
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Dhanuka, Adv.
Mr. Niraj Baheti, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Sumita Shaw, Adv.
Mr. Saptak Sanyal, Adv.
For the CGST Authority : Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. K.K. Maiti, Adv.
For the UOI : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Raunak Seal, Adv.
Mr. Dhirodatto Chaudhuri, Adv.
Hearing Concluded on : 25.02.2026
Judgment on : 25.02.2026
Om Narayan Rai, J.:-
1. This writ petition assails an order in appeal dated May 11, 2024 passed by
the appellate authority under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and
Services Tax, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (hereafter “the
said Act of 2017”).
2. The petitioner no.1 (hereafter “the petitioner”) is a supplier of certain goods
including edible oil.
Page 1 of 7
##PAGE2##3. The petitioner had applied for refund of accumulated unutilised Input Tax
Credit (ITC) for the month of May 2021 arising from inverted duty structure.
To wit, the rate of tax on inputs used by the petitioner was higher than the
rate of tax on the outward supplies of the manufactured foods of the
petitioner. Such application for refund of unutilised ITC as aforesaid was
filed before the relevant GST authority on June 16, 2023.
4. The said application was rejected by the proper officer by an order dated
June 5, 2024. The main reason for rejection of the petitioner’s claim for
refund was a clarificatory circular bearing no.181/13/2022-GST dated
November 10, 2022 issued by the Central Government and the
corresponding State circular bearing no.13/2022 dated November 14, 2022
whereby it had been clarified, (while referring to the restrictions imposed by
notification no.1397-FT dated August 23, 2022) that - “restriction imposed by
the said notification would be applicable in respect of all refund applications
filed on or after 18.07.2022.”
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner approached
the appellate authority.
6. The appellate authority also dismissed the petitioner’s appeal by the order
impugned, thereby agreeing with the reasons cited by the original authority.
Being thus aggrieved, the petitioner is now before this Court by way of the
present writ petition.
7. Mr. Majumdar, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits
that the Central Circular dated November 10, 2022 and the State Trade
Circular dated November 14, 2022 cannot be applied retrospectively so as to
Page 2 of 7
##PAGE3##curtail the petitioner’s right to claim refund that had accrued to the
petitioner in terms of the provisions of Section 54(1) of the said Act of 2017.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Majumdar that upon filing the petitioner’s return
under Section 39 of the said Act of 2017, the cause of action to claim refund
arose. It is submitted that once such cause of action has accrued, and the
legislature has granted a time within which claim of benefit of refund can be
made, such time could not have been subsequently curtailed by an executive
circular with retrospective effect.
9. In support of his contention that the retrospectivity attributed to the said
circulars has been found to be inconsistent with the legislative mandate of
Section 54(1) of the said Act of 2017 by several High Courts across the
country, Mr. Majumdar has relied on the following judgments: -
1. Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Union of India, reported at (2025)
28 Centax 75 (Guj),
2. Vaibhav Edibles Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported at (2025)
37 Centax 199 (All.),
3. Shree Arihant Oil and General Mills v. Union of India, the
Joint Commissioner, State Tax Circle Ganganagar, Goods &
Service Tax Council reported at 2025 (9) TMI-968 and
4. M/s Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
ST and Ors. decided by the Hon’ble High Court at Andhra
Pradesh on January 29, 2025.
10. He also relies on an orde
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.