Bal Pharma Limited vs. Union Of INDIA - Karnataka High Court, 09 December 2025

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52372 WP No. 5005 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5005 OF 2020 (T-RES) BETWEEN: BAL PHARMA LIMITED 5TH FLOOR, LAKSHMI NARAYAN COMPLEX, 10/1, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052. (REPRESENTED BY R K KOTHARY) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MD. IBRAHIM, & SRI. TUSHAR SHARMA, SRI. SYED .M. PEERAN, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEAPRTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAXES OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, LGSTO-020, NO 19/3, 2ND FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU -560 052. 4. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIRPORT/ACC COMMISSIONERATE, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52372 WP No. 5005 of 2020 AI SATS AIR FREIGHT TERMINAL, NEAR AIRPORT, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 300. 5. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT CUSTOMS, PLANTATION, NEAR ITPL, CONTAINER CORPORATION ROAD, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 066. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTI M.MARADI, HCGP FOR R-2 & R-3 SRI. JEEVAN.J.NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-4 & R-5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE AND HOLD THAT RULE 96(10) OF THE CGST RULES 2017 AS AMENDED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.54/2018-CT DTD.9.10.2018 IS ULTRA VIRES SECTION 16(3)9b) OF THE IGST ACT 2017 AND ILLEGAL AND VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 19 (1)(g) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“ (a) to declare and hold that Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 as amended vide Notification No. 54/2018-CT dated 9.10.2018 is ultra vires Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017 and illegal and violative of Article 14 and Article 19 (1)(g) of Constitution of India;

(b) to declare and hold that Rule 96(10) of the KGST Rules, 2017 as amended by Notification (4-U/2017) No. FD 47 CSL 2017 dated 27.10.2018 is ultra vires Section HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52372 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017 and illegal and violative of Article 14 and Article 19 (1)(g) of Constitution of India;

(c) to declare and hold that the clarifications provided under Para 7 of Circular No. 45/19/2018-GST, dated 30.5.2018, Para 5 of C.B.I &. C. Circular No. 59/33/2018-GST, dated 4.9.2018, Para 3 of Circular No. 70/44/2018-GST, dated 26.10.2018, Para 51 of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST, dated 18.11.2019 as being ultra vires Sec 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017 and Article 14 and 19(1)(g) o Constitution of India;

(d) pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and in the interest of t justice.”

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material on record.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order of this Court in the case of M/s Hikal Limited Vs. Union of India and others – W.P.No.15251/2020 dated 09.12.2025, in HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52372 order to contend that the present petition deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of the said order.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s – W.P.No.15251/2020 dated 09.12.2025, the operative portion of which reads as under:

11.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and striking down of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Act and the judgments of the Kerala High Court and other High Courts including Bombay High Court in the petitioner’s own case coupled with the fact that respondents themselves have omitted Rule 96(10) vide Notification dated 08.10.2024, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned Show Cause Notice and all further proceedings pursuant thereto deserves to be quashed.

12.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52372 (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexure – R dated 07.10.2020 issued by respondent No.5 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. (iii) Respondent authorities are directed to refund IGST amounting to Rs.75,55,123/- along with applicable interest back to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

The aforesaid order is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and consequently, the present petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in M/s Hikal Limited’s case supra.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Hikal Limited Vs. Union of India and others – W.P.No.15251/2020 dated 09.12.2025. (ii) Respondent authorities are directed to refund the amount, if any, payable to the petitioner along with HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52372 applicable interest back to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE