M/S M K Agrotech Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- ““i. Issue Writ of Certiorari or Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order No. Refunds/GST/SO/02/2023- 24, issued by Respondent No.3, dated 26.04.2023 at Annexure-K, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. ii. Issue Writ of mandamus or Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to grant refund claim to the Petitioner, along with interest; and/or iii. Declare Circular No.181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 [Annexure-F] issued by respondent No.1 as ultra vires the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and ultra- vires to the Notification dated 13.07.2022 at Annexure-D and as being unconstitutional; and/or HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44217 iv. Issue any other Writ or direction deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity including the cost of the Writ petition.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the following decisions: (i) MK Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India – W.P.No.1449/2024 & Connected Matters – dated 03.07.2025 (Karnataka). (ii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax – 2025 VIL 318 KAR. (iii) M/s. Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. And Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. Vs. DCCT and Ors. – 2025 VIL 113 AP (Department SLP dismissed – 2025-VIL-30-SC) (iv) Patanjali Foods India Vs. Union of India – 2025 VIL 213 GUJ (Gujarat). (v) Shree Proteins Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India – 2025 (5) TMI 373 – (Gujarat).
It is submitted that the aforesaid judgments having not been considered by the respondents while passing the impugned HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44217 order rejecting refund claim of the petitioner, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-K dated 26.04.2023 will indicate that the aforesaid judgment and the legal enunciated therein has not been considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the matter be remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the respondents has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner on the following two grounds: (i) Rate of tax and out put are one and the same. (ii) Notification No.9/2022 dated 13.07.2022 is retrospective in nature .
It is submitted that sofar as the findings recorded by the respondents that the rate of tax for input and output is one and the same, the said issue has been answered in favour of the petitioner as held in the cases of MK Agro and Indian Oil Corporation (supra).
It is also pointed out that the issue as to Notification No.9/2022 dated 13.07.2022 is perspective or retrospective has HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44217 also been answered in favour of the petitioner/tax payer/assessee in the case of M/s. Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. And Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd (supra) has been confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and others Vs. M/s. Gemini Edibles and Fats India Limited and another – 2025-VIL-30-SC and in view of the same, the matter deserves to be disposed of bearing in mind the aforesaid judgments.
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 that the issue as to whether the rate of tax relating to number of output and input tax under Section 54 of the CGST act, 2017, is answered in favour of the petitioner as held in the case of Indian Oil Corporation (supra). So also, the Notification No.9/2022 dated 13.07.2022 has been held to be prospective in nature in the aforesaid judgment confirmed by the Apex Court. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44217
Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration of the refund in accordance with law.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-K dated 26.04.2023 passed by respondent No.3 is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner for refund together with applicable interest, afresh and as expeditiously as possible. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.