Judgment
[2026:RJ-JP:31683-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10667/2025 CNR: RJHC020600582025 | URN: CW / 24032U / 2025 M/s Satyam Systems, A Proprietorship Concern Having Its Address At 7, New Atish Market, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302020 (Gstin- 08Aaspg7890G1Z3) Through Its Proprietor Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta Son Of Shri Satya Narain Gupta, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of 618, Vivek Vihar, Near Ahinsa Park, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302019.
----Petitioner Versus 1.
The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Division-F, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
2.
The Appellate Authority, Central Goods And Service Tax, H.q. N.c.r.b., Jaipur.
3.
The Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New- Delhi-110001.
4.
The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Vikram Gogra For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Ms. Chelsi Agarwal Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 12/08/2026 1.
The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned Order dated 24.01.2025 whereby the appeal preferred by Respondent No.1 seeking reversal of the refund amount sanctioned vide Form RFD-06 dated 20.10.2022 was allowed, allegedly overlooking the provisions of Sections 54(3)(ii) and 107(2) of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017.
[2026:RJ-JP:31683-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-10667/2025] 2.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of sprinkler irrigation equipment at Jaipur and is registered under the GST laws. During the relevant period, the petitioner effected inward supplies of goods taxable at higher rates than the rates applicable to its finished goods, resulting in accumulation of unused ITC on account of inverted tax structure. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a refund application dated 02.10.2022 under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST/RGST Act under the category of “ITC Accumulated due to Inverted Tax Structure”, which was sanctioned by the proper officer vide Form RFD-06 dated 20.10.2022.
2.1 The said refund sanction order was subsequently reviewed by the Principal Commissioner vide Order dated 06.11.2023, directing the filing of an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act on the ground that the refund claim was not admissible. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal on 08.11.2023 seeking reversal of the refund amount of Rs.20,87,580/-. The petitioner contested the appeal by filing objections dated 09.12.2024 and additional submissions dated 07.01.2025.
2.2 In support of the admissibility of the refund claim, the petitioner relied, inter alia, upon the Operation Guidelines of the Government of India for the “Per Drop More Crop (Micro Irrigation)” component of PMKSY, including the indicative Bill of Quantities for portable sprinkler irrigation systems, as well as Circular dated 17.06.2021 issued by the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner also placed on record images of the products manufactured and sold by it.
2.3 The Appellate Authority, however, vide impugned order dated 24.01.2025, rejected the petitioner’s claim, holding that the refund had
[2026:RJ-JP:31683-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-10667/2025] been erroneously sanctioned and was not supported by sufficient evidence. The said order is appealable under Section 112 of the RGST Act, 2017 before the GST Appellate Tribunal, however, owing to the non-constitution and non-functioning of the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 24.01.2025.
2.4 Hence, this writ petition.
3.
In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4.
It transpires that during the pendency of the writ proceedings before this Court, the GST Tribunal has been constituted under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017. In view thereof, an equally efficacious remedy being available, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
5.
The matters are accordingly remanded to the learned GST Tribunal for adjudication on merit. All the issues and the contentions raised in the writ petitions are kept open to be decided by the learned Tribunal.
6.
Time taken before this Court in pursuing the writ remedy shall not be computed for the purposes of limitation while entertaining the appeals by the learned Tribunal, provided the petitioners approach the learned Tribunal within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this Court.
7.
All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 39/AARZOO/TUSHAR