Schneider Electric India Pvt.Ltd Vs Union of India

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD. HAVING OFFICE AT NO.12A, ATTIBELE INDUSTRIAL AREA, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE – 562 107, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR.JANARDHANAN SARAVANAN

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. G. SHIVADASS, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. HARIPRASAD M.S., SRI. PRASHANTH.S & SRI. RISHAB.J, SMT. SHRADHA RAJGIRI & SMT. DHANYATHA.R & SRI. PRINCESS PREET, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETRY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) NO.137, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:52372 WP No. 43802 of 2019

HC-KAR

L.P.ESTATE, ITO

NEW DELHI – 110 002.

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX EAST COMMISSIONERATE, TTMC, BMTC COMPLEX, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR,

¶23

BANGALORE – 560 071.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. JEEVAN J.NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-3 & R-4; SMT. JYOTI M. MARADI, HCGP FOR R-2)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO.53/2018-CT DATED 09.10.2018 (VIDE ANNX-D) AND NOTIFICATION NO.54/2018-CT DATED 09.10.2018 (VIDE ANNX-E) ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE EXTENT IT RESTRICTS THE PETITIONER FOR CLAIMING REBATE OF IGST PAID AT THE TIME OF EXPORTS OF PRODUCTS AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶31

“a. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification No.53/2018-CT dated 09.10.2018 (Vide Annexure-D) and Notification No.54/2018-CT dated 09.10.2018 (Vide Annexure-E) issued by the Respondent No. 3 to the extent it restricts the Petitioner for claiming rebate of IGST paid at the time of exports of products.

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:52372 WP No. 43802 of 2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

b. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of mandamus allowing the refund of IGST paid by the Petitioner.

¶36

c. To issues order(s), directions, writ(s) or any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case in the interest of justice.

¶37

d. issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to allow the petitioner to amend the shipping bills and consider the exports undertaken by the petitioner as zerorated supply undertaken under bond or letter of undertaking and in effect allow them to claim the refund of the unutilized input tax credit in terms section 16(3) (a) of the IGST act read with section 54 of the CGST act and rule 89 the CGST rules;

¶38

e. issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to allow the petitioner to avail the recredit of the excess refund paid back after reducing the amount of refund granted in terms of the aforementioned prayer;

¶39

f. issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.3 to refrain from demanding any interest on the amount of refund already granted to Petitioner which has been subsequently reversed;

¶40

g. Alternatively, and without prejudice permit the Petitioner to avail credit on the basis of DRC-03, which has been submitted for making payment.”

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:52372 WP No. 43802 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶45

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order of this Court in the case of M/s Hikal Limited Vs. Union of India and others – W.P.No.15251/2020 dated 09.12.2025 , in order to contend that the present petition deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of the said order.

¶46

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.

¶47

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Hikal Limited Vs. Union of India and others – W.P.No.15251/2020 dated 09.12.2025, the operative portion of which reads as under:

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52372 WP No. 43802 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

"11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and striking down of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Act and the judgments of the Kerala High Court and other High Courts including Bombay High Court in the petitioner’s own case coupled with the fact that respondents themselves have omitted Rule 96(10) vide Notification dated 08.10.2024, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned Show Cause Notice and all further proceedings pursuant thereto deserves to be quashed.

¶51

12. In the result, I pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶54

(ii) The impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexure – R dated 07.10.2020 issued by respondent No.5 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.

¶55

(iii) Respondent authorities are directed to refund IGST amounting to Rs.75,55,123/- along with applicable interest back to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶56

The aforesaid order is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and consequently, the present petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in M/s Hikal Limited’s case supra .

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:52372 WP No. 43802 of 2019

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

In the result, I pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Hikal

¶63

Limited Vs. Union of India and others – W.P.No.15251/2020 dated 09.12.2025.

¶64

(ii) The impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexure – G dated 12.03.2021 issued by respondent No.3 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.

¶65

(iii) Respondent authorities are directed to refund the amount, if any, payable to the petitioner along with applicable interest back to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶66

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶67

SV

Schneider Electric India Pvt.Ltd v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Schneider Electric India Pvt.Ltd v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vishwavallabha Theertha Swamiji Vs the Income-Tax Officer

The Karnataka Co. Op Credit Society Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer

Shri Muniswamy Gowda Muralidhar Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S Karnataka State Road Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

M/S Hikal Limited Vs Union of India

M/S. Kum Interntional Vs Union of India