M K Agrotech Private Limited Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court)
The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 27.04.2023 rejecting its GST refund claim and sought quashing of the order, a direction to grant the refund along with interest, and a declaration that Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 was ultra vires the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and the notification dated 13.07.2022.
The petitioner contended that the controversy involved in the petition was directly covered by several judicial decisions, including MK Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, M/s. Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. and Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. Vs. DCCT and Ors., Patanjali Foods India Vs. Union of India, and Shree Proteins Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. It was submitted that these decisions had not been considered by the respondent while rejecting the refund claim.
The Court observed that the impugned order had rejected the refund claim on two grounds: (i) the rate of tax on input and output was the same, and (ii) Notification No. 9/2022 dated 13.07.2022 was retrospective in nature.
The petitioner submitted that the issue relating to the rate of tax on input and output had already been decided in favour of taxpayers in MK Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. It was further submitted that the question whether Notification No. 9/2022 dated 13.07.2022 was prospective or retrospective had been decided in favour of the taxpayer in M/s. Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. and Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd., and that decision had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and others Vs. M/s. Gemini Edibles and Fats India Limited and another.
The respondents opposed the petition and contended that it lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed.
After considering the rival submissions, the Court held that the issue concerning the rate of tax on input and output under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 had already been answered in favour of the petitioner in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The Court also noted that Notification No. 9/2022 dated 13.07.2022 had been held to be prospective in nature in the earlier judgments, which had been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
In view of these decisions, the Court held that the impugned order required reconsideration. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the order dated 27.04.2023 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the concerned respondent for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s refund claim, together with applicable interest, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.
Cases Discussed
- Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and others Vs. M/s. Gemini Edibles and Fats India Limited and another (Supreme Court), 2025-VIL-30-SC
- MK Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India (Karnataka High Court), W.P.No.1449/2024 & Connected Matters – dated 03.07.2025
- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court), 2025 VIL 318 KAR
- Patanjali Foods India Vs. Union of India (Gujarat High Court), 2025 VIL 213 GUJ
- M/s. Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. And Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. Vs. DCCT and Ors. (Andhra Pradesh High Court), 2025 VIL 113 AP
- Shree Proteins Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India (Gujarat High Court), 2025 (5) TMI 373
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
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/03/2023-24, issued by Respondent No.3, dated 27.04.2023 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
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.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. 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).
4. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgments having not been considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order rejecting refund claim of the petitioner, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-K dated 27.04.2023 will indicate that the aforesaid judgment and the legal principle 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.
6. 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).
7. It is also pointed out that the issue as to Notification No.9/2022 dated 13.07.2022 is perspective or retrospective has 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order at Annexure-K dated 27.04.2023 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.
