Aurobindo Pharma Limited v. Services Tax Act

Heard Mr. S.Pavan Kalyan, learned counsel representing Mr. Kailash Nath P. S. S., learrred counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for the respondents.

2. Writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer: 7 2 "For the above stated reasons and those that that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is praycd that this Hon'ble Court may be - pleased to issue a writ, order or Circction, more appropriately in the naturc of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the order of the 3.d Respondent bearing Order No. ZD36O525OO929OO dt-07.05.2025 as being illcgal, arbitrary, and violative of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2Ol7, the Integrated Goods amd Services Ta-x Act, 2017 and the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2Ol7 ar.d Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the Respondents to issue refund of Cess to the Petitioner of Rs.7 ,46,644 / - for the tax pcriod March 2O20 made vide ARN:AA360222O44921J on 28.02.2022, and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of t}le case."

3. Learned counsel for the parties, during the course of hearing, fairly submit that the issue involved in this u,rit petition has already been considered by this Court in W.P.No.2391. of 2023 and batch, uide comrr.or. order dated 10.12.2025, arrd the said order squarely covers the present writ petition as weli.

4. The conclusive portion of the said common order dated 1.0.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.2397 of 2023 and batch reads as j "11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the material facts and the relevart provisions of the Cess Act, CGST Act and IGST Act and the Rules prescribed thereunder. Without further dilating c..n the position in law as it has -r- J been well laid down in the cases of Patson Papers Private Limited (supra) and Atul Limited (supra), since the department is inclined to reconsider the matter in the light of the decisions referred to hereinabove, the impugred Order-ln-Original and the appellate order are set aside. The matter is rcmanded to the original authority to take a fresh decision in accordance wirh law after opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a pr:riod of four (4) months. These Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."

5. in vieu, of the consensus arrived at, this u,rit petition is also disposed of in terms of the common order dated 10.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.2391 of 2023 and batch. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous appiications pending, if any, shall stand closed P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, The Secretary, Revenue (Commercial Tax) Department The Dr' B.R Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat. Khairatabad, Hyderabad- 5OO022. The Deputy Com-missioner (ST). STU-1 , Punjagutta Dlvision, Hyderabad. - The Arjpellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Punjagutta Division, 5th Floor, C.T. Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad e Sifl, WodOmdrX t, nerocity, lndira Gandhi lnternational Airport, New Delhi. One CC to SRl. KAILASH NATH P S S, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX' High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies

2. J.

4. 5. 6.

7. (Along with a copy of the common order dated 10.12.2025 in W.P.No. 2391 o'f 2023 ) BIU BS HIGH COURT DATED:1 511212025 6f, STA O L) 0 t rE8 2016 ,i ,t '! , ORDER * WP.No.23857 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 13 (r g\ (l. q "A(.) IN THE HIGH COTIRT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TIYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARf,SH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE Szu JUSTICE G.M.MOtilUDDIN WRIT PETITION Nos. 2391 2404, 2 ltt, 2 412, 2 4 | 8, 2438, 2 439. 2 4 42. 2 445 a nd 2 4 46 of 2023 ; 2 4133, 242 4 1. 2 4 500. 2 457 8, 35222. 35228, 35470. 35895. 36000 ,, 36077 ,36078, 36130. 36186 and 37285 of 2025 DATED :70.12.2025 Between: Aurohindo Pharma Limited ANI) -.. Petitioncr State of T€langana, Revenue (Commcrcial Tax) Departmcnt, Rep by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and tlyo others COMMON ORDER: ... Respondents Sri Kailash Nath P S S, learned counsel fbr petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for respondents.

2. Writ Petition No.239l of 2023 along with analogous Writ Petitions has been filed on behalf of the same petitioner.

3. The claim for refund of tax paid against zero rated supplies for different periods has been rejected by respondent No.Z vide impugned orders dated 04.05.2021 in W.P. Nos. I 2 HCJ {AKrS, Jl& GMM. J W.P No.239l of2023 and batch 239t, 2404, 2411, 2412, 2418., 2438, 2439, 2442, 2445 and 2446 of 2023; dated 28.10.2024 in W.P. Nos.24133, 35895, :16000. 36011. 36130, 36186 and 31285 of 2025; dated :j 1.08.2024 in W.P. Nos.24224, 24500, 24578,35222, 35228, 35470 and 36078 ol 2025 which have been confirmed in appeals by respondent No.3 vide impugned orders dated

19.08.2022 in W.P. Nos. 2391, 2404,2411,2412,2418,2438, 2439,2442,2445 and2446of 2023; dated 01.05.2025 inW.P. Nos.24l3i, 24224, 24500, 24578, 35222, 35228, 35470, :i5895, 36000, 36017, 36078,36130, 36186 and 37285 of

2025. The relevant details in respect of which the petitioner flle.d individual Writ Petitions indicating the tax period, the amount ol ref-ur.rd claim, the date of Order-ln-Original and the date o1'Order-ln-Appeal are furnished in the form of tabulation chart hereunder: S.No. Writ Petition 37 38 39 40 4t 4) +) 44 wP 3728s12025 wP 239V2023 wP 2404/2023 wP 24n/2023 wP 241212023 w|,241812023 wP 2438/2023 wP 2439/2.023 Tax period Jnt-22 Jul- l 8 Aug-18 Oct-18 Sep-18 Feb-19 Jan-19 Apr- I 9 I I Amount of refund (in Rs.) 2,77,635 2,i8,936 66,82,892 39,90,322 21,7 t,962 54,50,421 5,64,201 77,79,256 Date Order Original 28/t0124 04/0s/2t 04t05t21 04/0st21 04t05121 04/05t21 Date Order Appeal 07105125 19t08t22 t9/08t22 t9/08/22 t9/08t22 19/08i22 19108t22 1,9t08t22 I ) HCJ (AKIS, J, & cMM. J W.P No 239I of 2023 ad batch .15 46 47 48 49 50 5l 52 )J

5.1 )l 56 57 58 59 60 wP 2442/2023 wP 244512023 wP 2446/2023 wP 2413312025 wP 2422412025 wP )4500/20?5 wI'2457812025 w!,3522212025 wP 3522812025 wP 3547012025 wP 3s89512025 wP 36000/2025 wP 36077/2025 wP 3607812025 wP 3613012025 wP 36186/2025 I I Dec- 18 Mar- l9 Nov- 18 May-20 Jan-20 Dec- I 9 Nov- l9 Sep- 19 Jul l9 Apr-20 Mar-22 Apr-22 Ma1"-22 Jun- I 9 Feb-22 Jul-22 l ,59,01 9 2,00,1 I I 8.95,282 1,46,541 20.05,85 7 28,98,523 20.7 5.532 l0. r 1.569 I 5.55.91 9 9,83 3 )3.s5,637 3,86,71I 3,53,ss6 13,17,310 6.80,574 12,94,7 52 04/0s/2t 0410st21 04105t21 28/10/24 3U08t24 31/08t?4 3U08t24 31t08t24 3t/08124 3I/08t24 28fi0/21 28110t24 28110t24 28110124 28/tOt24 t9/08/27 19108t22 19t08122 07/05/25 07 t05t2s 07105125 07 t05t25 07105125 07t05/25 011o5125 07 t05/25 07105125 07 t05t25 07 t05125 07 t05t25 I

4. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of pharmaceutical products. It primarily undertakes supplies to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units and cxports also. It is registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'GST Act'). According to the petitioner, under the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 (for short 'Cess Act'), a cess is levied under Section 8 of the Cess Act on intra-State or inter-State supplies of such goods or services as specified in column (2) of Schedule to the Cess Act for the purposes of providing compensation to the States for the loss of revenue for a period of five years from the date on which the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act'), was brought into force. The Cess 4 HCJ (AKrS, J) & cMM, J W.P.No.239l of 2q23 and batch Act provides for manner of determining the shortfall revenue fbr the States and the methodology for calculation and release ol'compensation. [n terms of Section I l(2) of the Cess Act, the provisiorrs ol the lntegrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'IGST Act') and the Rules made thereunder apply mutcttis mutandis to the lely and collection of cess on inter-State supplies of goods or services. The proviso therelo states that the cess on supply of goods or services shall be utilized only towards payment of cess on supply ofgoods or services leviable under this Section as such the cess paid on inputs can be utilized only for claiming credit for cess on supplies payable, ifany, and not as a credit for any other tax irrcluding CGST or IGST. Section 9 of the Cess Act provides firr fumishing of returns in respect of taxable supply of goods or services or both upon payment of cess in forms prescribed. It also provides for application for refund of such cess in such frrrm as rnay be prescribed. In terms of Sections 9 and 1l of the Cess Act read with Section 16 of the IGSTAct, direct export of goods and supplies made to SEZ units would qualify to be zero rated supplies under the Cess Act also. 5 HCJ (AK,S, J) & GMM. J W.P.No.239l of 2023 od batch Therefore, the provisions relating to zero rated supplies would apply to export of goods and supplies made to SEZ units under the Cess Act also. As per the petitioner, in terms of Section 16(3) of the IGST Act, a person making zero rated supply shall be eligible to claim refund of cess in accordance with Section 54 of the CGST Act sub.ject to fulfilment of conditions as prescribcd therein. The manner of clairning refund is set out under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short 'CGST Rules'). The petitioner purchases coal among other inputs in usual course of its business as luel for generating steam to manufacture bulk drugs and formulations i.e., the outputs of the petitioner. Under the Schedule read with Section 8(2) of the Cess Act, the petitioner paid cess at the time ofpurchase. Such cess paid on purchase ofcoal qualifies to be an'input tax' in terms of Section 2(g) of the Cess Act. According to the petitioner, since it l.rad accumulated input credit of cess of such purchases made from time to time, the relevant returns in Form GSTR-EB also reflected the same. The petitioner undertook exports of its end products. Though the said goods are taxable in terms of the CGST Act or the l I I 6 HCJ lAKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No 239t of2023 and batch IGST Act, they are non-taxable goods in terms of the Cess Act as they are not specified in the Schedule to the Cess Act. Therefore, in terms ol Section 2(i)(p) of the Cess Act read with Section 2(78) of thc CGST Act and Section 2(47) of the CGST Act, the said supplies under the Cess Act qualify to be a 'non- taxable' suppll'. In view of the same, the petitioner claims to have exported the goods without payment of cess and without fumishing a Bond or l,etter of Undertaking (LUT) as per Circular No.45l19/2018-GST dated 30.05.2018 which provides that Bond/LU'I need not be fumished for export of goods in case of non-taxable supplies. However, the petitioner paid IGST on such exports in terms of Section l6(3)(b) of the IGST Act. In vierv olthe same, the petitioner made a claim for refund of the cess paid exports in Form RFD-01 on different dates ir.r terms of Section 9 of the Cess Act read with Section 16 of the IGST Act. The petitioner also debited the electronic credit ledger by an amount equal to the refund amount so eligible by way of Form GST DRC-03 as in terms of Rule 89(3) of the CGST Rules, in case of refund of input the electronic credit ledger shall be debited by the 7 HCJ lAKrS, J) & cMM, J w.P.No.2391 of 2023 alld barch applicant by an amount equal to the refund so claimed. -/ Thereafter, the prescribed officer issued show cause notice to the petitioner in respect of the periods covering these Writ Petitions as to why such refund should not be rejected. It indicated that under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, only refund of input tax without payment of IGST is permissible but the petitioner is seeking refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit of cess on payment of IGST. According to the petitioner, the show cause notice also noted that refund of accumulated lnput T'ax Credit (ITC) of cess on zero rated supplies with payment of tax is nowhere specified under the Act and the Rules. The petitioner submitted its explanation to the prescribed ofllcer against each of the show cause notices issued from time to time. It took a plea that since the refund provisions ol the CGST Act apply mutatis mutandis to the Cess Act also, the petitioner's claim for refund is maintainable in terms of Sectiorr 54(3) of the CGST Act read with Section 9 of the Cess Act. Since no cess was paid on export of goods, the claim for refund of tax is maintainable. Therefore, the payment of IGST is of no relevance to determine the eligibility I B HCJ (A(rS, J) & GMM. W.P No 2391 of2023 ed batch for claiming refund of cess. Since the cess was paid on inputs, which have beerr utilized in exporl of goods without payment of cess and it is a zero-rated supply in terms of Section 9 of the Cess Act read rvith Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, the petitioner is eligible to claim the refund of input CCSS. However, the proper olficer rejected the claim of the petitioner by individual orders in respect of the relevant periods on the ground that in tems of Circular No.45l19/2018-GST dated

30.05.2018, a supplier cannot claim refund of compensation cess in case ol zero-rated supplies made on payment of integrated tax. According to the petitioner, the other averments were not considered ,'vhile rejecting the claim. Aggrieved thereby, the petitiorrcr preferred an appeal before the appellate authoritv under Section 108 of the CGST Act in Form GST APL-0 I reiterating the grounds in its reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner also clarified that for a person making zero-rated supplies on payment of tax, input of cess cannot be utilized for payment of IGST and therefore, the said Circular does not restrict the refund ofcess on zero-rated supplies with payment of IGST. Despite opportunity of personal hearing, the 9 HC.I (AKrS, J) & cMM. J w.P No.239r of2023 and batch appeal was rejected on the ground that the petitioner made a claim for refund under the heading 'Any other' instead of the heading 'Exports without payment of tax' as such refund has been denied. On these grounds, the petitioner has therelore assailed the order passed by respondent No.2 and the appeal order passed by respondent No.3, in the present Writ Petitions.

5. The petitioner has taken a ground that in terms of the scheme of the GST legislation, exports can be undertaken with payment of IGST or without payment of IGST by furnishing a Bond/LUT in terms of Rule 964 of the Rules. Similarly, exports can be undertaken with payment of Cess or without payment of Cess by furnishing a Bond,/LUT. However, Bond/LUT in the case of non-taxable supplies cannot be insisted upon (as clarified in Circular No.45l19/2018-GST dated 30.05.2018) and sirrce the goods exported by the petitioner were non-taxable supplies under the Cess Act, the petitioner was not under an obligation to furnish a Bond/LUT for export of its goods. Thus,, the petitioner could maintain a claim for refund of input cess even in the case of exports without payment of Cess and without fumishing a Bond/LUT 10 I{CJ {AIGS, J) & GMM, J W P No 2391 of 2023 and batch in terms of Rule 96,{ of the Rules' According to the petitioner, the compensation cess is an eligible input credit under GST and accordingly, refund under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act slrould mutatis mutandis be applied to cess in terms of which refund of unutilized ITC of cess should be eligible for refund where no cess is paid on export of goods. However, since the respondents failed to appreciate the stand of the petitioner based on the provisions ofthe 2011 Act and the Rules and the Cess Act, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court since the appeal remedy under Section ll2 of the CGST Act was not available.

6. Counter-affidavit was frled in the lead matter supporting the impugned orders relying upon the sarne Circular dated

30.05.20 I 8.

7. The relevant paragraph which deals with refund of unutilized input tax credit of compensation cess availed on inputs in cases where the final product is not subject to the ler,y of compensation cess, in the Circular dated 30.05.2018 is extracted hereunder: 11 HCJ (A-KfS, Jl & cMM, J w.P No.239l of2023 and batch I I "5. Refund of unutilized input tax credit of compensation cess availed on inputs in cases rvhere the final product is not subject to the lery of compensation cess: Doubts have been raised whether an exportcr is etigible to

5.1 claim refund of unutilized input ta\ credit of compensation cess paid on inputs, where the final product is not leviable to compensation cess. For instance, cess is levied on coal. rvhich is an input for the manufacture of aluminum products, whereas cess is not levied on aluminum products. In this regard, section 16(2) of the lntegrated Goods and

5.2 Services Tax Act, 201 7 (IGST Act tor short) states that, subiect to the provisions of section l7(5) of the CGST Act, credit of input tax may be availed for making zero rated supplies. Further, as per Section 8 of the Goods and Scrvices Tax (Conlpensation to States) Act, 20U, (hereinafter referred to as the Cess Act), all goods and services specified in the Schedule to the Cess Act are leviable to cess under the Cess Act; and vide Section I t(2) of the Cess Act, Section l6 of the IGST Act is mutqtis mutandis made applicable to inter-State supplies of all such goods and scrvices. Thus, it implies that all supplies of such goods and seryices are zero rated under the Cess Act. Moreover, as Section l7(5) of the CGST Act does not restrict lhe availment of input tax credit of compensation cess on coal, it is clarified that a registered person making zero rated supply of aluminum products under the bond or LUT may claim refund of unutilized credit including that ol compensation cess paid on coal. Such registered persons nray also make zero-rated supply of

5.3 aluminum products on payment of integrated tax but they cannot utilize th€ credit of the compensatior cess paid on coal for payment of integrated tax in view of the proviso to Section I l(2) of the Cess Act, which allows the utilization of the input tax credit of cess, only for the payment of cess on the ounvard supplies. Accordingly, they cannot claim refund of compensation cess in case of zero-rated supply on payment of integrated tax." 1,2 \ HC.I (AKrS, Jl & GMM, J' w.P No 2391 of 2023 and batch

8. The respondent State has taken the stand that under the head 'Exporls with payment of tax', refund is not eligible as the goods are notr-taxable supplies. The provisions quoted by thc petitioner are applicable to taxable supplies if exported either with payment or without payment but not on non-taxable supplies. Section l6(3Xa) and (b) of the IGST Act clearly indicates eligibility for refund subject to prescribed conditions and safeguards. Therefore, the refund is not automatic. It is eligible subject to fulfilment of prescribed conditions. The prescribed condition is that the exported goods shall be taxable supplies to get the benefit of zero rated supplies with payment of tax. Without liability, payment of tax through DRC'-03 does not entitle for refund. If the liabililty is discharged in accordance with [aw, the benefit of refi"rnd arises. The CBIC Circular daled26.07.2017 also speaks the same. It is the case of the respondents that if the coal is exported as it is, then payment of tax under Cess Act, it is eligible for refund. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the original and appellate authorities are proper. 13 HcJ lAKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.2391 of 2023 and batch

9. The matters have been taken up today. However, at the outset, learned counsel for the respondent State, instructions, submits that the position in lar.l' has been clarified by the Division Bench judgment of Gujarat l{igh Court in the case of Atul Limited and another v. Union of India and othersr. The Gujarat High Court in the case of refund of unutilized ITC as against zero-rated supply of compensation I cess paid, held that the petitioner in such cases can claim refund of the cess paid olr purchase of coal used for manufacturing of goods exporled being zero-rated supplies. The petitioner may have paid the IGSI'on the goods exported by it, but it was not required to pay any compensation cess as the goods manufactured by the petitiouer are exempted from the levy of tax. In such a scenario, the law laid down in the case of Patson Papers Private Limitetl v. Union of India and others2 would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The case of Patson Papers Private Limited (supra) related to the manufacture of dyes and there was purchase of coal in the manufacturing process. It was involved in production of ' 2025 (7) TMI 1768 '?zozsio; tt"tt na: 14 HCJ {AKrS. J) & GMM, J W.P.No.239l of 2023 and batch -r-r finished goods u,hich was not liable to GST. Finished goods were exported being zero-rated supply. It is submitted that in the light of the ratio rendered by the Gujarat High Court, the department is inclined to reconsider the matter.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, position in law would remain the same as the coal is used as an input for manufacturing purposes undertaken by the petitioner the final product of which is exported. -lhese exports are to the SEZ and are exempted from lelry of tax. [f that be the case, the stand of the respondent department to reject the refund of accumulated unutilized cess but not required to be used for making zero-rated supplies which are non-taxable supplies was not proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner fi.rrther submits that the judgment in case of Patson Papers Privatc Limited (supra) was carried to the lJon'ble Supreme Court by the Revenue and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. I 1. We have heard the learned counse[ for the parties and taken note of the material facts and the relevant provisions of the Cess Act, CGST Act and IGST Act and the Rules i i ,IF 1J HCJ (AXrS, J) & GI,IM, J 1V.P-No 2391 of 2023 ad batch prescribed thereunder. Without further dilating on the position in law as it has been well laid down in the cases of Patson Papers Private Limited (supra) and Atul Limited (supra), since the department is inclined to reconsider the matter in the light of the decisions referred to hereinabove, the impugned Order- In-Original and the appellate order are set aside. The maffer is remanded to the original authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after opporluniry of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four (4) months. These Writ Petitions are accordir.rgly disposed oL There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, il any pending, shall stand closed. APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J 1o'h DECEN{BER,2025.