Apex Formulations Pvt Ltd VS Union Of India

In a recent legal proceeding, Mr. Priyank P. Lodha, representing the respondents, waived the service of the rule. With the consent of all concerned advocates, the matter proceeded to final hearing on the same day. The petitioner filed a petition under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

1. Quashing and setting aside the appellate order dated 1.5.2020 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals).

2. Quashing and setting aside the original refund sanction order dated 26.3.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST.

The petitioner, through an advocate Mr. Priyank P. Lodha, has waived the service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of all learned advocates representing the parties involved, the court has decided to proceed with the final hearing of the case on the same day.

The petition under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following reliefs:

1. To quash and set aside the appellate order dated 1st May 2020 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals) and the original refund sanction order dated 26th March 2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST. The petitioner argues that the refund was rightfully sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner.

2. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any interest under the GST Acts.

3. To issue an interim order restraining the respondents from coercively recovering the refund amount that has already been released to the petitioner, along with any interest accrued thereon, until the notice, admission, and final hearing of the petition.

This summary captures the essence of the petitioner’s demands and the current procedural steps in the legal proceedings.

The case involves a petition filed under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India by a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing and selling medicines. The petitioner seeks several reliefs, including the quashing of an appellate order and an original refund sanction order issued by tax authorities. They contend that a refund was rightfully sanctioned and dispute liability for interest under the GST Acts. Pending the court’s decision, they request restraint on the coercive recovery of refunded amounts and interest.

Respondents, represented by learned advocates, have filed an affidavit-in-reply opposing the petitioner’s prayers. The petitioner purchases raw materials taxed at 18% under GST and sells finished goods attracting a 12% tax rate. Additionally, they sell goods to exporters at a concessional tax rate of 0.1% under specific notifications. The matter was scheduled for final hearing upon waiver of service of rule by the petitioner’s advocate and consent from other parties’ advocates.

In the matter presented before the court, the petitioner, a Private Limited Company involved in the manufacture and sale of medicines, filed a petition under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought several reliefs, primarily to quash an appellate order dated May 1, 2020, issued by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), and an original refund sanction order dated March 26, 2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST. The petitioner contended that the refund sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner was valid and should not have been overturned. Additionally, the petitioner sought relief from any liability to pay interest under the GST Acts and requested the court to restrain the respondents from coercively recovering the refunded amount and interest pending the final hearing of the petition.

The respondents, in response to the court’s notice, filed an affidavit-in-reply opposing the petitioner’s prayers.

The factual background of the case is as follows: the petitioner purchases raw materials such as Ibrufen IP, Ciprofloxacin HCL IP, etc., subject to an 18% GST rate, while the finished goods sold attract a 12% tax rate. The petitioner also sells goods at a concessional tax rate of 0.1% to exporters under relevant notifications. This situation results in an inverted duty structure where the petitioner’s output tax rate is lower than the tax rate on inputs.

The petitioner exported goods through a valid exporter and applied for a refund under Rule 89(5) of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, providing necessary documentation. The refund application was initially sanctioned on March 26, 2019. However, the CGST department appealed against this sanction, arguing that the exporter had not correctly listed the petitioner’s details in the shipping bill, which was a requirement under relevant notifications. The appeal was accepted on May 1, 2020, overturning the refund order.

The matter was taken up for final hearing with the consent of all parties involved, and the learned advocates waived the service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

This summary captures the main issues, reliefs sought, and the factual context of the case as presented before the court.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: