[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Aquaeva Chemtech Private Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 22 January, 2026
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
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
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
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 this Court by way of the present writ
petition.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Tanushree
Shrimali for the respondents has tendered communication
dated 22.1.2026 received from the office of Deputy
Commissioner of State Tax, Range-14 Bharuch, and the same
is taken on record. At the outset, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms.Shrimali has submitted that as and
when the application is filed by the petitioner for refund of the
tax amount paid by the petitioner, the same will be considered
and refund will be paid to the petitioner.
5. Under the circumstances, the petitioner shall make an
application seeking refund of the amount and in case such
application is made by the petitioner, the amount of refund
shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of such application.
6. With these observations, the present petition stands
disposed of. However, it is observed that in case the petitioner
is not paid the amount of refund within the aforesaid stipulated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/621/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
period, it will be open for the petitioner to revive this petition
by filing a simple note before the registry of this Court. It is
further observed that in case the petitioner is constrained to
revive this petition, an exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- will be
imposed upon the erring officer.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
R.S. MALEK / 13
