Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP 15242-25.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15242 OF 2025
Marathon Electric India Private Limited
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
_______
Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Suraj Ghadigaonkar & Y. Sharma i/b. UBR Legal
Advocates for Petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Vyas, Addl.G.P. a/w Aditya Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State.
_______
CORAM:
G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE:
16 APRIL 2026
P.C.
1.
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
praying for the following substantive reliefs:-
“a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writof Certiorari or
any other writ, order or directionunder Article 226 of the Constitution
of Indiacalling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner'scase and
after going into the validity and legality ofthe provisions set aside and
quash the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 (Exhibit "A"), passed by
the Respondent No. 3;
b)
that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writof Certiorari or
any other writ, order or directionunder Article 226 of the Constitution
of Indiacalling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and
after going into the validity and legality ofthe provisions hold that the
petitioner is entitled tofull refund of Rs.54,31,283/- (IGST of
Rs.12,79,563/-, CGST of Rs.20,75,860/- & SGST of Rs.20,75,860/-),
filed vide RFD 01, for the period 1.04.2020 to 31.03.2021;
c)
that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the
Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality of the
provisions hold that the petitioner and M/s.RBA, are independent
Page 1 of 6
Laxmi
LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
Digitally signed
by LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
Date: 2026.04.18
14:51:31 +0530
WP 15242-25.DOC
contractors, engaged in business on principal-to-principal basis.
d)
that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writof Certiorari or
any other writ, order or directionunder Article 226 of the Constitution
of Indiacalling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner'scase and
after going into the validity and legality ofthe provisions hold that the
petitioner is notproviding services as an "agent" of M/s. RBA;
e)
that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari
or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Indiacalling for the records pertaining to the
Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality of the
provisions hold that the service rendered by petitioner satisfies the
requirement of export of service and accordingly, the petitioner is
eligible for refund amounting to Rs. Rs.54,31,283/- (IGST of
Rs.12,79,563/-, CGST of Rs.20,75,860/- & SGST of Rs.20,75,860/-),
and direct the Respondent No.3 & 4 to process the same along with
interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017;
f)
that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari
or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the
Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality of the
provisions hold that the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed
refund at the rate of 18%;
g)
that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari
or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the
Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality of the
provisions direct the Respondent No. 3 to grant the interest on delayed
refund as per Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017;”
2.
The facts lie in a very narrow compass:-
i.
The Petitioner is inter alia engaged in business of providing information
technology software services and had entered into a service agreement with M/s.
Regal Beloit America Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “M/s. RBA”), a USA based
company for supply of customized information technology services. It is the
Petitioner’s contention that as all conditions of export of services had been fulfilled,
Page 2 of 6
Laxmi
WP 15242-25.DOC
the Petitioner had shown the supply as an export of services without payment of
tax in its Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns.
ii.
On 4th April 2022, the Petitioner filed a refund claim of Rs. 54,31,283/- in
form GST-RFD-01 for the period April 2020 to March 2021. Thereafter, on 20th
May 2022, Respondent No. 4 issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner in Form
GST-RFD-08 and in response thereto, the Petitioner filed their reply dated 3rd June
2022 in Form GST-RFD-09.
iii.
On 10th October 2022, a personal hearing in respect of the aforesaid show-
cause notice was granted to the Petitioner, and on 7th June 2022, Respondent No. 4
vide refund rejection/sanction order in Form GST-RFD-06 rejected the refund of
Rs. 54,31,283/-.
iv.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection, the Petitioner filed an appeal
before Respondent No. 3, and thereafter a show cause notice dated 15th December
2022 was issued to the Petitioner by Respondent No. 3, to which the Petitioner
responded by reply dated 16th January 2023. A personal hearing was thereafter
accorded to the Petitioner on 16th February 2023, and an order dated 24th April
2023 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) was passed by Respondent
No. 3, rejecting the refund of Rs. 54,31,283/- for the period 1st April 2020 to 31st
March 2021, thereby upholding the order dated 7th June 2022 passed by
Respondent No. 4.
Page 3 of 6
Laxmi
WP 15242-25.DOC
3.
It is in the backdrop of the above facts that the Petitioner, being
aggrieved by the impugned order, has filed the present petition.
4.
Learned counsel Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Mr. Suraj Ghadigaonkar, and
Mr. Yashvardhan Sharma appeared for the Petitioner, and Ms. Shruti Vyas,
Addl.G.P. and Mr. Aditya Deolkar AGP appeared for Respondent-State. We have
perused the papers and proceedings with the assistance of the learned Counsel for
the parties.
5.
It is the contention of Mr. Raichandani, learned Counsel appearing for
the Petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without dealing/adverting
to the submissions made by the Petitioner at the time of personal hearing, as well as
the contentions raised by the Petitioner in their reply dated 16th January 2023. He
has therefore submitted that the rejection of refund as claimed by the Petitioner has
not been correctly made and the impugned order has been passed on a non-
application of mind. He has therefore submitted that the impugned order needs to
be set aside, and a fresh hearing needs to be accorded to the Petitioner wherein the
Petitioner’s refund claim has to be adjudicated afresh. He has further submitted
that this Court in a series of decisions, which were based on similar
facts/circumstances and where impugned orders were passed without considering
submissions made by the assessee(s), has remanded the matter back to the
Appellate Authority for de novo consideration, referring particularly to the
decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sundyne
Page 4 of 6
Laxmi
WP 15242-25.DOC
Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India. He has sought to place
reliance on the following decisions rendered by this Court:-
i.
Lubrizol Advance Materials India Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ
Petition No. 987 of 2026)
ii.
Vistex Asia Pacific Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition
No. 4852 of 2022)
iii.
V Ships India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 1534
of 2025)
iv.
Magna Automotive India Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ
Petition No. 6501 of 2024)
v.
Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (Writ
Petition No. 15228 of 2023)
6.
Per contra, Ms. Vyas, learned Addl. G.P. for the State has opposed the
reliefs as prayed for in the present Petition and submitted that the impugned order
needs to be upheld as the same is a well reasoned and speaking order.
7.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, and considering that a
consistent view has been taken by this Court in the orders referred to by the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner as enumerated above, we find substance in the
contentions as urged on behalf of the Petitioner. We find that no specific finding
has been recorded in the impugned order before rejecting the refund application as
claimed by the Petitioner, and therefore a reasoned and speaking order is required
to be passed by Respondent No. 3 prior to the rejection of refund. The impugned
Page 5 of 6
Laxmi
WP 15242-25.DOC
order therefore suffers from the vice of being a non speaking order vis-a-vis the
rejection of refund claim of the Petitioner.
8.
In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to pass the following
order which will meet the ends of justice:-
a.
Impugned order dated 24th April 2023 is quashed and set aside. b.
Proceedings stand remanded to Respondent No. 3 for de novo consideration to decide the refund claim of the Petitioner and for a fresh order to be passed in accordance with law and after hearing the parties. The Appellate Authority shall complete the determination within a period of three months from today. c.
All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. d.
Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Laxmi
