##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/621/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026

undefined

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 621 of 2026

==========================================================

AQUAEVA CHEMTECH PRIVATE LIMITED

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR PARESH V SHETH(3998) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

MS TANUSHREE SHRIMALI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3

==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

Date : 22/01/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. Heard Mr.Paresh V. Sheth, learned advocate for the

petitioner and Ms.Tanushree Shrimali, learned AGP for the

respondents. Learned AGP has fairly pointed out the order

dated 18.12.2025 passed by this Court in Special Civil

Application No.12120 of 2025 and submitted that the matter

may be disposed of in said terms.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for

quashing and setting aside the Deficiency Memos dated

10.3.2025 and 19.5.2025 issued by respondent no.3 and to

direct the respondent to grant the refund claim.

3. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this

Court in the case of Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and

Industry v. Union of India, reported in (2025) 26 Centax

150 (Guj), wherein this Court has held that assignment/

transfer of the leasehold rights in land by the lessor to the

lessee is at par with sale of land and it does not amount to

Page 1 of 4

Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 21 16:35:53 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/621/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026

undefined

supply, and hence the GST is not payable. The respondent no.3

has denied the refund claim by issuing deficiency memo GST-

RFD-03 dated 19.5.2025 without applying the mind to the law

enunciated by this Court in the case of Gujarat Chamber of

Commerce and Industry (supra).

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that M/s. Dayaram Pharma

Chem obtained the Final Transfer Order to sale the said plot

from GIDC and the same was sold to the petitioner under an

agreement dated 19.07.2024. The petitioner paid the total

amount in two installments. It is further the case of the

petitioner that this Court in case of Gujarat Chamber of

Commerce v. Union of India reported in 2025 SCC Online

Guj. 225 has held that the assignment by sale and transfer of

leasehold rights of the plot allotted by GIDC to the lessee in

favour of the third party assignee for a consideration shall be

an assignment/sale/transfer of benefits arising out of

“immovable property” by the lessee-assignor in favour of the

third party-assignee which would become the lessee of GIDC in

place of the original allottee-lessee. Thus, in such

circumstances, the provisions of Section 7(1)(a) of the Central

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For Short “GST Act”)

providing for scope of supply read with Section 5(b) of

Schedule II and clause 5 of Schedule III would not be applicable

to such transaction of assignment of leasehold rights of land

and building and the same would not be subject to levy of GST

as provided under Section 9 of the GST Act.

3.2 Thereafter, the petitioner applied for refund of the tax

paid on the said leasehold transfer under Section 54 of the GST

Page 2 of 4

Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 21 16:35:53 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/621/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026

undefined

Act. However, respondent no. 3 issued Deficiency Memo in

Form RFD-03 on the ground that the supporting documents are

not legible and in addition it was stated that there is no

notification or circular published by the GST Council regarding

refund of GST paid on lease transaction. Pursuant thereto, the

petitioner made another application for refund before the

respondent no. 3. Since both the applications of the petitioner

were disposed of with Deficiency Memo, the petitioner is

constrained to approach th