Gujarat High Court
S.N. Tradelink Pvt Ltd vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10928 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
S.N. TRADELINK PVT LTD.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
UCHIT N SHETH(7336) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SHRUNJAL T SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Uchit N.
Sheth for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
Shah for the respondents.
2. Having regard to the controversy
involved in this petition, which is in a
narrow compass, with the consent of the
learned advocates for the respective
parties, the matter is taken up for
hearing.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal
T.Shah waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of the respondents.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner
has prayed for the following reliefs:
"A. This Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue a writ of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
mandamus or writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate
writ or order directing the
Respondents to forthwith grant
refund of the amount of IGST paid
by the Petitioner pursuant to
Entry No. 10 of Notification
No.10/2017-IGST (Rate) dated
28.6.2017 along with appropriate
interest on such refund; Annexure
'A'
B. This Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or writ in the nature
of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ or order quashing
and setting aside orders (annexed
at Annexure G) rejecting refund of
IGST paid on the basis of the
impugned Entry No. 10 of
Notification No.10/2017-IGST
(Rate) dated 28.6.2017;
Annexure'A'
C. Without prejudice to the above
and in the alternative this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
issue a writ of mandamus or writ
in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or order
directing the Respondents to allow
rectification of returns filed by
the Petitioners so as revive input
tax credit balance under the IGST
head with corresponding
utilization from CGST and SGST
head;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
D. Pending notice, admission and
final hearing of this petition,
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to direct the Respondents to grant
refund of the amount of IGST paid
by the Petitioner pursuant to
Entry No. 10 of Notification
No.10/2017-IGST (Rate) dated
28.6.2017 along with appropriate
interest on such refund; at
Annex.A
E. Ex parte ad interim relief in
terms of prayer D may kindly be
granted;
F. Such further relief(s) as
deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may
kindly be granted in the interest
of justice for which act of
kindness your petitioner shall
forever pray."
5. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner filed applications for refund
for the IGST paid on the Ocean Freight
from time to time after pronouncement of
the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of Union of India v. Mohit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
Minerals Pvt. Ltd. decided on 19.05.2022
in Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2022 and allied
matters along with necessary documents
including Chartered Accountant Certificate
regarding non-passing of tax burden. The
petitioner also filed separate
applications in the month of March and
April,2025.
6. The respondent authorities issued the
show cause notice upon the petitioner in
the month of May, 2025 proposing to reject
the refund application on the following
grounds:
i) Such applications are time barred.
ii) IGST credit has already been utilised
by the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
iii) The refund claim did not fall within
the categories stipulated under section
54(3) of the CGST Act.
7. The petitioner filed a detail reply to
the show cause notice explaining that the
refund was based on the notification
having been declared unconstitutional by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore,
limitation under section 54 of the GST Act
would not apply. The petitioner also
contended that the credit was utilised in
accordance with the order of utilisation
as stipulated under section 49(5) of the
GST Act read with Rule 88A of the GST
Rules and there was sufficient balance
available under the CGST and SGST heads
and therefore, the question of credit
being utilised by the petitioner did not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
arise. The petitioner also has sought the
permission to rectify Form GSTR-3B to
reverse the credit and thereafter claim
the refund.
8. However, the respondent authorities
rejected the refund application by the
impugned orders passed in May, 2025.
9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has
preferred this petition.
10. Learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth for
the petitioner at the outset invited the
attention of the Court to the additional
affidavit filed on behalf of the
petitioner for reversing the utilisation
of input tax credit in the Electronic
Credit Ledger under the head of SGST
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
towards Integrated Goods and Service Tax
so as to enable the availment of refund of
excess IGST paid by the petitioner on
ocean freight and relied upon the Form GST
DRC-03 from page nos. 379D to 379ZZA of
the petition. He also referred to the
detail statement placed on record along
with the additional affidavit at page
no.379C of the petition. It was therefore,
submitted that the refund claim of the
petitioner is required to be allowed as
prayed for.
11. In support of his submissions,
reliance was placed on the following
decisions of this Court:
1) Torrent Power Ltd/ v. Union of India
(Order dated 04.08.2022 rendered in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
Special Civil Application No.2603/2022).
2) The Sandesh Ltd. v. Union of India
(Order dated 04.08.2022 rendered in
Special Civil Application No.12757/2021).
3) Jupiter Comtex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India (Order dated 14.02.2024 rendered in
Special Civil Application No.1280/2024).
4) M/s. Comsol Energy Private Limited v.
State of Gujarat (Judgment dated
21.12.2020 rendered in Special Civil
Application No. 11905/2020).
12. On the other hand, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for
the respondents referred to and relied
upon the affidavit in reply filed on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
behalf of respondent no.1, wherein it is
averred as under:
"4. The Petitioner had claimed
refund of IGST paid on Ocean
Freight vide various applications
filed in the month of March and
April 2025. However, such refund
applications were rejected
primarily on two grounds
a. The Refund is time barred
because the application is filed
beyond the statutory time limit of
2 years. The refund that is being
claimed is of the period of 2017,
2018 and 2019 but the applications
are made only in 2025. This is
further beyond 2 years from the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of UOl vs. Mohit
Minerals which is dated
19.05.2022.
b. Since the IGST which is sought
to be refunded is already availed
and utilized, refund cannot be
granted. It was held that even
though credit utilization is
automatic as per Rule 88A and
Section 49(5) law does not
recognize constructive non-
utilization merely because of
availability of SGST or CGST.
c. Conditions of s. 54(3) does not
get fulfilled and further since
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
there is no unutilized ITC to
grant any refund.
5. It is further submitted that
during the pendency of this
Petition before the Hon'ble Court,
the Petitioner has reversed the
unutilized ITC in its electronic
credit ledger from the State Goods
and Services Tax (SGST) head to
the IGST head by filing Form DRC-
6. It is submitted that I have
verified the additional affidavit
dated 19.09.2025 along with the
Annexures filed by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner has reversed an
amount of 21,47,54,168/- (Rupees
One Crore Forty-Seven Lakh Fifty-
Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty-
Eight Only) towards IGST by filing
Form DRC-03. I state that upon
verification, such reversal has
been found to be correct and in
order."
13. Referring to above averments, it was
submitted that the respondents have
verified the reversal of credit utilised
under SGST towards IGST by filing Form GST
DRC-03 and such reversal was found to be
correct. It was therefore, submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
appropriate order directing the
respondents to issue the refund may be
passed.
14. Considering the above submissions, the
impugned order of rejecting the refund
claim of the petitioner is hereby quashed
and set aside and the respondent
authorities are directed to pass a fresh
de-novo order to grant refund to the
petitioner in view of decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Mohit Minerals Pvt.
Ltd. (supra) and other decisions of this
Court cited by learned advocate for the
petitioner. Such exercise shall be
completed within a period of 12 weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10928/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
15. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. No order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
RAGHUNATH R NAIR
