COMMON ORDER

: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Kailash Nath P S S, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for State Taxes for respondents. Perused the record.

2. These are the batch of writ petitions which have been filed challenging the rejection of the claim for refund of tax paid against on zero rated supply for different periods.

3. The relevant details in respect of which the petitioner filed individual writ petitions indicating the tax period, the amount of refund claim, the date of Order-In-Original and the date of Order-In-Appeal are furnished in the form of tabulation chart hereinunder:

4. Recently, the Division Bench of this High Court headed by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice had taken up an identical matter in respect of the very same petitioner i.e., Aurobindo Pharma Limited v. State of Telangana, 2025 181 taxmann.com 704 (Telangana), wherein the Division Bench has in paragraph Nos.9 to 11 has held as under:

9. The matters have been taken up today. However, at the outset, learned counsel for the respondent State, on instructions, submits that the position in law has been clarified by the Division Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Atul Limited and another v. Union of India and others, 2025 (7) TMI 1768. The Gujarat High Court in the case of refund of unutilized ITC as against zero-rated supply of compensation cess paid, held that the petitioner in such cases can claim refund of the cess paid on purchase of coal used for manufacturing of goods exported being zero-rated supplies. The petitioner may have paid the IGST on the goods exported by it, but it was not required to pay any compensation cess as the goods manufactured by the petitioner are exempted from the levy of tax. In such a scenario, the law laid down in the case of Patson Papers Private Limited v. Union of India and others, 2025 (6) TMI 1343 would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The case of Patson Papers Private Limited (supra) related to the manufacture of dyes and there was purchase of coal in the manufacturing process. It was involved in production of finished goods which was not liable to GST. Finished goods were exported being zero-rated supply. It is submitted that in the light of the ratio rendered by the Gujarat High Court, the department is inclined to reconsider the matter.

10.