Judgment
it I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE GHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE,G,M. TI,IOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: {6s89 0F 2026 Between:
M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions lndia Private Limited, Building 12 A, Survey No. 64 part Stilt, 1st to Sth, 6thPart, 8th to 10th ffice levels Sundew Properties Private Limited SEZ Mindspace Cyberabad MADHAPUR Hyderabad Telangana, 500081 Rep.by its authorised signatory Mr.Gopakumar ...PET]TIONER D 1. The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Jubilee Hills-1 Circle, Panjagutta Division, 5-9-279, 7th floor, B Block, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids' Hyderabad -500001 2. The Development Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone Sth Floor, parisrama Shawan, Sashir Sagh, Hyderabad -500004 3. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Department, C.T Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad -500001 4. The State of Telangana, Through the Principal Secretary to Government (Commercial Tax Department), Telangana Secretariat. Hyderabad -5OOO22 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction by (a)setting aside the Refund Rejection Order bearing Reference No, 2D361225027383K dated 08.12.2025 passed by Respondent No. 't rejecting refund of IGST of Rs. 13,09,78,306/- as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the statutory scheme of the IGST Act, CGST Act and the SEZ Act, 2005, and consequently quash the same and/or (b)directing Respondent No. 1 to sanction and disburse the refund
of IGST amounting to Rs. 13,09,78,3061 as claimed by the Petitioner in Refund Application bearing Reference No. AA361025008914F dated 09-10-2025, together with applicable interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017 l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith disburse period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and/or 90% of the refund amount of INR 13,09,78,306 which is lawfully due and payable to the Petitioner, within a time-bound period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAGHAVAN RAMABADRAN REP SRI LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN Counsel for the Respondents: SPECIAL GOVT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following: ORDER
F.*--:;ffi.:-l+==E+"'7 l AT HYDERABAD THE IION'BLE THE CIIIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESII KUMAR SINGII AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOIIIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.16589 of 2026 Dated: 09.06.2026 Between:
M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, R.p., by its authorized signatory, Mr. Gopakumar, Madhapur, Hydarabad.
Petitioner And The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad and 3 others.
...Respondents ORDER:
Heard Mr. Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel representing Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for State Tax.
2.
The writ petition has been preferred assailing the refund rejection order dated 08.12.2025 rejecting petitioner's claim for refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amount of Rs.13,09,78,306/- on Group Health Insurance
2 Services availed by Special Fponomic Zone (SEZ) Unit. Out of the number of grounds taken by the petitioner one of them is that the Refund Sanctioning Officer erroneously denied the refund to the petitioner SEZ Unit despite Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for getting refund where the tax incidence has been borne by the recipient. The Refund Sanctioning Authority has confused the clairn of refund as being under zero-rated supplies falling within the SEZ. Whereas, the petitioner's claim is purely a refund against supplies made. The authority has wrongly treated Group Health Insurance Services as personal consumption overlooking that such services are covered under the approved default list of SEZ services and were procured for employees welfare essential to IT/ITeS operations and also fall within the authorised operations of the SEZ Unit. The officer has introduced new grounds which were never raised in the show cause notice denying petitioner an opportunity to respond.
Therefore, petitioner has preferred this writ petition taking inter alta a number of grounds. The clairn relates to the period November,2023 to December,2023.
The application for endorsement of the SEZ GST Officer has been kept pending which is another handicap for the petitioner to establish its claim before the Refund Sanctioning Authority. Therefore, this Court may entertain this writ petition.
ffit -J 3.
Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax has at the outset taken the plea of altemative remedy of appeal. He submits that all these grounds are available to be raised before the appellate authority. The grounds wged by the petitioner are in relation to the merits of the claim whether it fatls under supplies made to the insurance authorities or were to be treated as zero-rated supplies in respect of a unit falling in the SEZ zone. The appellate authority would be in a better position to examine the rival claims.
4.
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant materials referred to and placed on record.
5.
In the facts and circumstances noted above, whether the claim for refund made by the petitioner, which is a SEZ Unit, is outside the scope of zero-rated supply and is a simplicitor claim of refund against supplies made to the insurance company are matters which can be properly raised and decided by the appellate authority on merits. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal taking all such grounds of law and fact as are available to it. Needless to say, if an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay, if any, taking into account that the petitioner was pursuing its remedy before this Court in writ jurisdiction against the refund rejection order dated 08.12.2025.
4 6.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/.P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFlCER 1. The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Jubilee Hills-1 Circle, Panjagutta Division, 5-9-279, 7th flrlor, B Block, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderaberd -500001 2. The Development Commisr;ioner, Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone Sth Floor, parisrama Shawan, Sashir Sagh, Hyderabad -500004 3. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Department, C.T Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad -500001 4. The Principal Secretary to Government (Commercial Tax Department), Telanga na Secretariat. T.S., Hyderabad -5O0O22 5. One CC to SRl. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies (r- 6 To, BM TKS
I / HIGH COURT DATED: 09/0612026 ORDER WP.No.I6589 of 2026 s 1 rtE 5 Ia '(o 07JUIm rzfl 2 * i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .oP(d Vk- ",{d''" 1o