tM/s. Valuelabs Solutions LLP v. The Superintendent of Central Tax

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in nature of a writ of mandamus to set aside the impugned Order-ln-Appeal No.HYD-GST-RRC- APP1 -2A3-23-24 d1.19.10.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the refund sanctioned to the petitioner and consequentially set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice No. 0412}25-26-Adjn-(Supt)-GST) dt.15.05.2025 issued along with Form GST DRC-01 dt.16.05.2025 vide Reference No.2D360525019522J and the consequent Order-in-Original No.01 12025-26- Adjn (Supdt)-Gachibowli-ll Range dt.28.O7.2025 issued along with Form GST DRC-07 dt.05.08.2025 vide Reference No.2D360825005944 passed by the 1st respondent demanding the recovery of refund of input tax credit of Rs.19,97,669/- sanctioned to the petitioner against exports made by it during the financial year 2O2O-21 under Section 73(9) of the CGST/TGST/IGST Acl, 2017 along with interest and penalty as being issued without any authentication by way of signature by the 1st respondent and in violation of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, without application of mind, arbitrarily, violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and against the provisions of the CGST/TGST/IGST Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the recovery of demand, interest, and penalty confirmed vide impugned Order-ln-Appeal No.HYD-GST-RRC-APP1-203-23-24 dt.19.1 0 2023 passed by the 2nd respondent and the subsequent Order-in-Original No.01 12025- 26-Adjn (Supdt)-Gachibowli-ll Range dt.28.07.2025 issued along with Form GST DRC-07 dt.05.08.2025 vide Reference No.2D360825005944 passed by the 1st respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI YAMMANURU SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. DOMINIC FERNANDES (SR. SC for CBIC) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE SRI G.M. WRIT ON No- 3187O of 2o25 ORDER: Learned counsel Ms. y.Siri Reddy appears for the petitioner. Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Se,ior standing counsel for central Board of Indirect Taxes and customs, appears for respondents No.1 to 3.

2. The petitioner has approached this court with the following prayer: "For all the reasons stated in the accompanying afhdavit, the petitioner prays that the Honble court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of a writ of mandamus to set aside the impugned Order-In-Appeal No. HYD-GST-RRC-APP I-203-23_24 dt.19.10.2023 passed by the 2"d respondent rejecting the refund sanctioned to the petitioner and consequentially set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice No.O4/2O25-26- Adjn-(Supt)-GST dt.15.05.2025 issued along with F-orm GST DRC-OI dt. L6.O5.2O25 vide Reference No. 2D36o525o19522J and the consequent order-in-original No.O1l2025-26Adjn (Supdt)-Gachibowli-Il Range dt.28.O7.2025 issued along with Form GST DRC-07 I I 2 dt.05.08.2025 vide Reference No.2D360825005944 passed by ttre 1st respondent demanding the recovery of refund of input tirx crcdit of Rs.19,97,6691- sanctioned to the petitione r against exports made by it during the financial year 2O2tO-21 un<ler Section 73(9) of the CGST/TGST'/IGST Act, 2017 along with interest and penalty as being issued without any authentication by way of signature b-v the 1"t responclt:nt and in violation of principles of natural .iustice without. jurisdiction, without application of mind, arbitrarily, r'iolative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 261> of the Constitu tion of India and against the provisions of the CGS'|/'|GST/lGS'f Act, 2Ol7 and the Rules made thercunder, and pass any such order(s) deemed frt in the intcrest. of justice."

3. The petitioner seems to have preferred the writ petition only after the consequential order-in-original dated

28.O7.2O2:; and the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 05.08.2025 were issued for recovery of input rax credit of Rs.19,97 ,669 /- sanctioned to the petitioner against the exports said to have been made during the financial year 2O2O-2O21 along with interest and penalty.

4. By the impugned order-in-appeal, the refund \ sanction order dated 15.08.2022 was set aside. On being specificalll' asked, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the circular dated 24.09.2025 issued by the j ,4, aJ 7 Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby it is indicated that for preferring an appeal against the orders of the appellate authorities or revisional authorities issued on the common portal on or after 01.03.2023 but on or before

31.0L.2024, the portal would accept filing after the period commencing on 01.12.2025 and ending on 31.L2.2O25 or any date succeeding such date being not later than

30.06.2026. It is submitted that in the absence of constitution of the Goods and Services Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, "the GST Tribunal") for so long, the petitioner did not have an adequate remedy of appeal. Therefore, it has preferred the present writ petition. It is submitted that if the petitioner is relegated to the remedy before the GST Tribunal and also before the Appellate Tribunal against the consequential order-in-original, two parallel proceedings would operate. Therefore, this Court may entertain the writ petition, as it is not barred by delay.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents No.l to 3 submits that even if the first contention of the petitioner is accepted, the petitioner has no justification for I I 4 approaching this Court against the order-in-appeal cancelling refund sanction order passed on lg.lO.2O23 itself. It is submitted that in the scheme of things devised by the GST Appellate Tribunal, the filing of appeals against the orders of this particular period would commence from

01.12.2025 and therefore, the petitioner is not barred by delay in approaching the appellate forum. He also submits that against the consequential order-in-original, the petitioner has an adequate remedy of appeal under Section lO7(I) of ttre Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2OLT. It is submitted that the petitioner, apprehending recovery consequenl- to the order-in-original, has approached this Court a-fter much delay. If the consequential order-in- original is also appealed against with a pre-deposit, it would amount to stay of recovery of the remaining amount. Therefore, the petitioner is not without an efficacious alternative remedy. In such circumstances, this court may refrain from entertaining the writ petition.

6. we have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. \ 5

7. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order-in-appeal after two years for which we do not find any sufficient explanation- However, the remedy of appeal is not foreclosed as the GST Appellate Tribunal has started functioning recently. The wind.ow for preferring an appeal against the orders passed during the subject period ,rvould commence from 01.12.2025, which the petitioner can always avail. on the other hand, the petitioner also has an 1 t efficacious alternative remedy before the appeilate authority against the consequential order-in-originar, whereby recovery of the input tax credit sanctioned in favour of the petitioner has been ordered. Therefore, we decline to entertain the writ petition. 'rhe petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy in law and raise all such grounds on facts and law before the appellate forum. B. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. \ \ I t 6 Miscr:llaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand close:d. SD/.M. OSMAN ALI IS TANT /TRUE COPYII To,

5. 6. 7. BN LS I \ HIGH COURT DATED:2:411U2A25 ORDER WP.No.31870 ot 2025 + t., B 1 r:i; ztut 'tT ,, ,l ,- .? r Lr'tO ^t-r- * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\l s{