M/S. Fortunapix Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Fortunapix Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the rejection order dated May 13, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 1). The rejection pertained to a refund application filed on March 16, 2025, for the period April 2023 to March 2024. The rejection was based on the petitioner's failure to respond to a show cause notice dated April 24, 2025. The petitioner also sought to declare Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated November 18, 2019, ultra vires the CGST Act and Rules, to the extent it mandates a specific format for submitting statements of invoices for refund claims on export of services with payment of tax. The writ petition was filed on July 9, 2025.
Held
The Court noted that the show cause notice dated April 24, 2025, was issued in proper manner as per Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act, and the petitioner's failure to respond to it was not disputed. The Court found the petitioner's contention that the matter should be remanded to the Proper Officer untenable, as there was no default on the officer's part in complying with principles of natural justice or prescribed procedures. The Court observed that the petitioner had bypassed the alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. Therefore, the Court decided to relegate the petitioner to the appellate remedy. The petitioner was granted liberty to prefer an appeal within two weeks, along with a delay condonation application. The appellate authority was directed to consider the petitioner's pursuit of remedy in writ jurisdiction during the pendency of the writ petition. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any comments on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Refund Rejection Order dated May 13, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the CGST Act and Rules, necessitating its setting aside? 2. Whether Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated November 18, 2019, is ultra vires the provisions of the CGST Act and CGST Rules, specifically concerning the mandatory submission of a Statement of Invoices in Annexure-B format for refund claims on export of services with payment of tax? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the refund rejection order was illegal and arbitrary. They argued that Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST is ultra vires the CGST Act and Rules, as it imposes a mandatory requirement for submitting invoices in a specific format (Annexure-B) for refund claims on export of services with tax payment, which is not provided for in the Act or Rules. They sought a direction to reconsider their refund application without reference to this circular. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the show cause notice dated April 24, 2025, was issued in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act and was not disputed. They contended that the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice, making the rejection tenable. The respondents also noted that the petitioner had bypassed the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act.
Sections Cited
Section 107(1), Section 169(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the foilowing: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTI CE, SRI APARESH KT]MAR SINGH \i AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.19872 of 2025 DATED: 05.02.2026 Between: M/s. FOR'IUNAPIX PRIVATE LIMITED (A Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) Plot No.10l Kavuri Hills, Phase-ll, Madhapur Shaikpet, [{yderabad 500033 Represented by its Director Sri Ashok Thumrnalachetty Petitioner AND Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax Gachibowli CGST Division, Ranga Reddy Commissionerate, l0-3-30 I -303, 4'r' Floor Serene Heights, Humayun Nagar, Masab Tank Hyderabad, Telangana- 500028 & 3 others Respondents ORDER Heard Mr. Santosh Sagar Kapilavai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through video conference and Mr. D.Raghavendar Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appearing tbr respondent Nos.l to 3. 1I t'
- 2 2 The fcllowing relief has been prayed for by the petitioner: "For :he rcasorls and grounds stated in the accompanying Affidavit, it is prayecl that this llon'blc Couft may be pleased to issuc a Writ of Mandanrus or an,v othcr appropriate rvrit or o'dcr or dircctiorr: a. I-o ca I lbr tllc recorcls pertainiug to tlrc Irnpugnecl Refurrd Rejection Oicler i1 For6t CS l' I{FD-0(r clatcd 13.05.2015 bearing rcf'crencc nurnber 7-"D3605250I50725 issuecl b;, tlte Rcsl-'ondcttt No.l, and sct asiclc tlie sarle as arbitrary. illcgal and violativc of tlre prorisiorrs of thc (lGS'l'Act and CCS'l'Rules. b.'l'o direct the l{csporrdettt No. I to reconsicler and disposc of the Refuncl Applicatiol filed h1' thc l)ctiliorter vide Application Relbrence Nunrber AA36032502494j9 datcd I6.03.202-5, strictlv in ttccorclitttce w'ith larv. after qranting a rcasonablc opportgpity of beins hcitrd. c. '[o dt:clarc that Circular No. 125/,14/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 issued b-y thc Rcspondr:ttt No.3 ttl the e\tent it requires nrandatory submission of Statement of inyoiccs in tltc lbrnrat statcd itt "Anncrttre-8" lor claims of rcfund of integrated tax paid on exporl of servicr:s rvith paymerrt o{'tax is ultru llres the provisions of the CGST'Act and CGSI' Rules. d. Altcrrrativell'. to dircct the Rcsporrdent No. I to reconsider and dispose olt6e Rcfu.d Application fllctl b1' tltc Petitioner vide Application Iteference Number AAi603:r502'19419 datcd I6.03.2015. r*itltout rcfererrcc to Annexure-B arrcl other irrapplicacle parantel.ers rcferrcd to in Circular No. 125/441201g-GST datecl lg.ll.20l9 issued by the l{espondent No. 3. c. Pass sttclt otlter order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumsta nces of the case."
The r,:fund application fbr the period April, z0z3 to March, 2024 was rejected by the irnpugned order dated 13.05.2025 in FORM-GST-RFD-06 as the petitioner fajled to reply to the contentions raised in the show cause notice. The fact that shcw cause notice dated 24.04.2025 was issued in proper manner in \I i I
J terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 thereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Act') is not in dispute. The contention of the petitioner that the matter should be remanded to the Proper Officer is not tenable as there is no default on part of the officer in compliance of principles of naturaljustice or procedure prescribed under the CGST Act.
On behalf of the petitioner, several contentions have been raised as to the grounds of rejection which the Proper Officer did not appreciate.
On the other hand, it appears that the contentions raised in the show cause rrotice dated 24.04.2025 by the Proper Officer remained unanswered in absence of any respotlse by the petitioner o.
Petitioner has also sought to challenge a circular bearing No.l25l44l20l9- GST dated l8.l I .2019 which requires mandatory submission of statement of invoices in the format in Annexure-B for refund of tax paid on export of services rnade with payment of tax as ultra vires the provisions of the Act. Petitioner has, instead of availing the remedy of appeal, now sought to question the refund rejection order by raising a ground of ultra vires of the circular dated 18.1 I .2019 itsetf which is applicable to processing of the refund claims.
However, the petitioner has bypassed the alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. The writ petition has been t pending since its institution on 09.07.2025. Since we are inclined to relegate the 4 petitioner to the appellate remedy, in case such an appeal is preferred rvithin a period of '-wo weeks rvith a delay condonation application, the appellate authority wrluld take into account that the petitioner was pursuing its rerledy for all this pericd befbre this Court in rvrit juriscliction. Petitioner is at liberty to take all suclt grotinds ol'lact and lar,r, befiore the appellate authority which rrray be considere d, in accordance with larv, within a reasonable time.
The instant Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. It is made clear that we have not lttacle any cornlnents on the rnerits of the case of the pafties. However, th,31's shall be no order aS [o costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if a.y. shall stand closed. .A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ISTANT //// SECTION OFFICER To, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. PMK BS #dJ.-,
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, bowli CGST Division, Ranga Reddy Commissionerate, 10-3-301-303, 4th Floor Serene Heights, Humayun Nagar, ft/asab Tank Hyderabad, Telangana - 500028 The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Gachibowli CGST Division, Ranga Reddy Commissionerate, 10-3-301-303, 4th Floor Serene Heights, Humayun Nagar, Masab Tank Hyderabad, Telangana - 500028 The Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, Department of Revenue l/inistrlr of Finance North Block, New Delhi - 110001 The Joint Secretary, Union of lndia, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Financr> North Block, New Delhi - 1 10001 One CO to SRI SANTOSH SAGAR KAPILAVAI, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI D.RAGHAVENDRA RAO, SC FOR CBIC [OPUC] One CC to THE DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA [OPUC] Two Ct) Copies
HIGH COIJRT DATED:0510212026 ORDER WP.No.1'9872 ot 2025 DISPOSiNG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOIJT COSTS H 'i E, lfr? i4 ( .J .J i] I r t:I B I t'i 7Z DAIC u'l ru
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.