M/S Wintac Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA - Karnataka High Court, 09 December 2025

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52372 WP No. 4998 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.4998 OF 2020 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S WINTAC LIMITED NO.54/1, BUDHILAL NELAMANGALA BANGALORE-562 123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJA M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NORTH BLOCK NEW DLEHI-110 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX NO.1, QUEENS ROAD BENGLAURU-560 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE NORTH WEST COMMISSIONERATE 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH WING BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX, SHIVAJI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 051. 4. THE PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE NO.112, S P ENCLAVE, ADJACENT TO KARNATAKA BANK K H ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52372 WP No. 4998 of 2020 5. SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER AND DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX INTELLIGENCE BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT NO.112 S P ENCLAVE ADJACENT TO KARNATAKA BANK K H ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADANAN PILLAI R., CGC FOR R-1; SRI. JEEVAN J.NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (TWELFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2018 VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.54/2018-CENTRAL TAX DATED 9TH OCTOBER 2018 WHICH IS HERE TO ANNEXED AND MARKED AS ANNX-A TO THE EXTENT IT SUBSTITUTES SUB-RULE (10) OF RULE 96 OF THE CENTRAL GOODS SERVICES TAX RULES, 2017.DIRECTING AMENDMENT OF RULE 96 OF THE CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RULES, 2017 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) Quash the Central Goods & Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018 vide Notification No 54/2018 Central Tax dated 9th October 2018 to the extent substitutes Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 96 of the Central Goods Services Tax Rules, 2017;

(b) Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ of Direction as may be appropriate directing amendment of Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52372 to extend the benefit of claiming refund of IGST paid on the exported goods, making suitable adjustments for the duty foregone on imported material, to the exporters who had availed the Advance Authorisation benefits.;

(c) Issue Writ of mandamus or order or direction or other writ in the nature of Certiorari directing Respondent No 2 and 3 not to initiate coercive action for recovery of the refund of IGST already sanctioned to the Petitioner on the exported products.

(d) Issue Writ of Mandamus or Order or direction directing Respondent 1 to 5 to allow waiver of interest paid on the amount of IGST paid on the inputs imported or procured from SWZ as deemed import which was foregone earlier and direct the Respondents to refund the said interest amount in the light of the averments stated in the Writ petition,

(e) Issue Writ of Mandamus or Order or direction directing Respondent 1 to 5 to allow Input Tax Credit of the IGST Paid consequent to retrospective amendment of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 through Notification No 16/2020-Central Tax dated 23rd March 2020,

(f) Issue Writ of Mandamus or Order or direction to Respondents to allow the Input Tax Credit of Rs. 2,35,26,936/- taken by the Petitioner and refund the same, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52372 (g) Grant such other writ, order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned CGC for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52372 M/s Hikal Limited Vs. Union of India and others – 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 (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.” HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52372

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 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