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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 438896

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
M/S BLUEFISH PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP 19351/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO. 19351 OF 2024 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S BLUEFISH PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED

REPRESENTED BY ITS

AUTHORISED SIGNATORY/DIRECTOR

SHRI VIVEKANANDAN SUNDARAMURHTY

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

SON OF SUNDARAMURTHY

RESIDING AT: NO. 110-B,

J S HARMONY APARTMETN 3RD MAIN, T.C PALYA ROAD

HORAMAVU, BENGALURU - 560 043.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. BHARAT RAICHANDANI, AND

SRI. RAAGHUL PIRAANESH, AND

SRI. CHANDRAKIRAN.K, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY HEREIN BY

Digitally signed THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

by CHANDANA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

B M GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Location: High NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.

Court of

Karnataka

2. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE CHAIRMAN

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,

NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

TAXES LGSTO -038

LGSTO-038, II , 2ND FLOOR

HAL-2ND STAGE

DEFENCE COLONY

INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 038.

4. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)-5 SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NISHAN UNNI.P, CGC FOR R-1 SMT.JYOTHI.M.MARADI, HCGP FOR R-2 TO R-4)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 107(11) OF THE CGST ACT VIDE ORDER NO.ZD2904240547833 DATED 22.04.2024, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT 4TH ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-B AS BAD IN LAW.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“ a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and set aside the Impugned Order passed under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act vide Order No.ZD2904240547833 dated: 22.04.2024, issued by the 4th Respondent enclosed as Annexure-B as bad in law.

b) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and to hold that the Refund Rejection Order in Form GST RFD-06 vide No.ACCT-LGSTO-38/RFD-06/2023-24 dated: 24.05.2023, enclosed as Annexure-G issued by 3rd Respondent was passed without the authority of law and without jurisdiction.

C) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus by ordering the Respondent No.3 to refund the accumulated/unutilized ITC available in the electronic credit ledger along with interest.

d) Issue any other direction or grant any other relief, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice.

e) Issue a direction to provide for the cost of this petition.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned CGC as well as learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record will indicate that the petitioner is engaged in the business of providing Research and Development services and other business support services to its Parent company namely Bluefish Pharmaceuticals AB, Sweden. During the period April, 2022 to September, 2022, the petitioner having provided export of services, Export Invoices were issued with an endorsement “Export of Services without payment of IGST” under the Letter of Undertaking (LUT). It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner is not an ‘intermediary’, was entitled to refund of accumulated / unutilized input tax credit (ITC) available in their Electronic credit ledger on account of the export of services without payment of IGST, the refund application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondents by passing the impugned order, against which, the petitioner filed appeal, which is also dismissed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the respondents rejecting refund application / claim of the petitioner and confirmed by the appellate aut

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