M/S M K Agrotech Private Limited Vs Union of India

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44217 WP No. 18421 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 18421 OF 2023 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED 29AADCM7734K1ZZ, NO.389, KAVERI LAYOUT, M B ROAD, SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA DIST. – 571 438 (REPRESENTED BY SRI IMRAN KHAN, DIRECTOR) REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. VANI DWEVEDI & MEGHANA LAL, ADVOCATES FOR SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT FOR REVENUE, CENTAL BOARD OF INDIRCT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001

¶14

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE BANNAIMANTAP DIVISION S1 AND S2, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDRTHA NAGAR, MYSURU – 570 011

¶15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE BANNAIMANTAP DIVISION S1 AND S2, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDRTHA NAGAR, MYSURU – 570 011

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:44217 WP No. 18421 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO. REFUNDS/GST/SO/02/2023-24 ISSUED BY RESP-3 DATED 26.04.2023 AT ANNEXURE-K IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶27

““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/02/202324, issued by Respondent No.3, dated 26.04.2023 at Annexure-K, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶28

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

¶29

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 ultravires to the Notification dated 13.07.2022 at Annexure-D and as being unconstitutional; and/or

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44217 WP No. 18421 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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.”

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶34

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶36

issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the following decisions:

¶37

(i) MK Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India – W.P.No.1449/2024 & Connected Matters – dated 03.07.2025 (Karnataka).

¶38

(ii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax – 2025 VIL 318 KAR.

¶39

(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)

¶40

(iv) Patanjali Foods India Vs. Union of India – 2025 VIL 213 GUJ (Gujarat).

¶41

(v) Shree Proteins Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India – 2025 (5) TMI 373 – (Gujarat).

¶42

It is submitted that the aforesaid judgments having not

¶43

been considered by the respondents while passing the impugned

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:44217 WP No. 18421 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

order rejecting refund claim of the petitioner, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶48

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.

¶49

Learned counsel for the respondents has proceeded to

¶50

reject the claim of the petitioner on the following two grounds:

¶51

(i) Rate of tax and out put are one and the same.

¶52

(ii) Notification No.9/2022 dated 13.07.2022 is retrospective in nature .

¶53

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).

¶54

It is also pointed out that the issue as to Notification

¶55

No.9/2022 dated 13.07.2022 is perspective or retrospective has

¶56

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44217 WP No. 18421 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44217 WP No. 18421 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

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.

¶64