Trivitron Healthcare Private LtdversusDeputy Commissioner Division VI CGST Central Excise Commissionerate Belapur

                                                                                    wp 12365-26.doc



ARJUN                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MACHHINDRA
KADAM                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Digitally signed by                     WRIT PETITION NO.12365 OF 2026
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM
Date: 2026.10.08
17:44:33 +0530
                      Trivitron Healthcare Private Ltd.                     … Petitioner.
                             Versus
                      The Deputy Commissioner,
                      Division – VI, CGST & Central
                      Excise Commissionerate, Belapur. & Ors.               … Respondents.

                                                 --------------
                      Mr. Sagar Tilak a/w. Adv. Preshita Adamane, Advocate for the
                      Petitioners.
                      Mr. Ram Ochani a/w. Adv. Suman Kumar Das, Advocate for
                      Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
                      Dr. Dhruti M. Kapadia, AGP for Respondent/State.
                                                 --------------
                                                  CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
                                                                SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

                                                             DATE :    7th OCTOBER, 2026

                      P.C. :

                      1.          The challenge in this Petition is to the following notices

                      and orders issued /passed by the Respondent No. 1 – The Deputy

                      Commissioner,        Division    –       VI,   CGST   &   Central     Excise

                      Commissionerate, Belapur :

                                  I. The impugned Order dated 10/12/2025 passed by

                                  Respondent No. 1 rejecting the Rectification Application

                                  filed by the Petitioner;


                      Talwalkar/Amk                        1
                                                                  wp 12365-26.doc



            II.    The    impugned       Refund   Rejection   Order        dated

            11/08/2025 passed in Form GST-RFD-06;

            III.         The summary of the Refund Rejection Order

            dated 11/08/2025; and

            IV. The Show Cause Notice dated 11/07/2025 issued in

            Form GST-RFD-08.

2.          The Assessment Order was passed by the                 Additional

Commissioner, CGST & C. Ex Belapur on 30/8/2022 for the

Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, raising a demand of

Rs. 1,12,34,474/- against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the

said Assessment Order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the

Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Raigarh and at the time of

filing the said appeal made a pre-deposit equal to 10% of the

demand raised in the Assessment Order through Form DRC-03.

3.          The First Appellate Authority rejected the said appeal of

the Petitioner. The order was received by the Petitioner on

10/7/2023.          On      20/10/2023,       the    Petitioner       formally

communicated its intention to file appeal before the Goods and

Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) as and when

the Tribunal becomes functional. Thereafter, on 11/7/2024 CBIC



Talwalkar/Amk                        2
                                                           wp 12365-26.doc



Circular No. 224/19/2024- GST came to be issued clarifying that

the recovery shall remain stayed upon payment of pre-deposit.

4.          On 21/6/2025, the Petitioner filed refund application

under section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

for the period July, 2023 to September, 2023 amounting to Rs.

93,76,673/-.      By the impugned refund        rejection order dated

11/8/2025, the Respondent No. 1 determined the net eligible

refund of Rs. 64,01,750/- after disallowing the claim of

Rs.21,97,190.45/-.        Instead of sanctioning the same, the

Respondents adjusted the entire amount            against the alleged

outstanding demand pertaining to the Financial Years 2017-18,

2018-19, 2019-20 arising out of the Assessment Order dated

30/8/2022.

5.          The Petitioner has already filed an appeal before the First

Appellate Authority on 09/11/2025 challenging the disallowance

of Rs.21,97,190.45/-.

6.          Thereafter, on 19/8/2025, the Petitioner deposited a

further 10% of the disputed demand through Electronic Credit

Ledger pertaining to demand Financial Years 2017-18 to 2019-20.

With that the Petitioner paid entire pre-deposit of 20% of the



Talwalkar/Amk                    3
                                                          wp 12365-26.doc



disputed demand contemplated by the Statute, namely, first 10%

made at the time of filing the first appeal through Form       DRC-03

and further 10% of the disputed demand on 19/08/2025 through

Electronic Credit Ledger.      On payment of 20% of the demand,

recovery of the balance 80% of the demand stood stayed by

operation of law under Section 112(8) and 112(9) of CGST, 2017.

It is the contention of the Petitioner that the adjustment of the

refund against such State demand is without jurisdiction.

7.          Thereafter,   on   08/12/2025   the   Petitioner   filed        a

rectification application pointing out the said error, placing on

record that the entire 20% pre-deposits were paid, the Petitioner

had thereby discharged its statutory obligation in full with nothing

whatsoever remained to be paid as a condition for maintaining its

appeal before the Tribunal and the adjustment was accordingly

contrary to Section 112(8) and 112(9) of the CGST, 2017 . The

said application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated

10/12/2025 without assigning any reasons and without dealing

with the contentions. Hence, this Petition.

8.          Mr. Ochani, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3

submitted that the Petition deserves to be dismissed as what has



Talwalkar/Amk                    4
                                                          wp 12365-26.doc



been done by the Respondent No. 1 is rejection of the rectification

application since there were outstanding demands pertaining to

Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 which                was by

invoking Section 54 of the CGST /MGSC Act and hence, the

demand was recoverable.        It is submitted that such adjustment

cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of law. It is further

submitted that the entity which has filed the proceedings is

Trivitron Healthcare Private Limited whereas the trade name in the

GST Department has been amended and the records indicate the

name as “Kiran Medical Systems (A Division of Trivitron

Healthcare Private Limited).

9.          We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We

have gone through the pleadings on the record.

10.         It is pertinent to note that so far as the demand for the

year 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 is concerned, the Petitioner had

made a pre-deposit equivalent to 10% to the demand raised in the

Assessment Order at the time of filing of the appeal. The First

Appellate Authority rejected the said appeal of the Petitioner which

order is received by the Petitioner on 10/07/2023.                     On

20/10/2023 the Petitioner communicated its intention to file



Talwalkar/Amk                    5
                                                          wp 12365-26.doc



appeal before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal as and

when said Tribunal becomes functional. CBIC Circular dated

11/07/2024 came to be issued clarifying that the recovery would

be stayed on payment of the prescribed pre-deposit. The Petitioner

having paid the pre-deposit, there was no question of effecting

recovery on the basis of the demand raised in the Assessment

Order for the Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20.

11.         The refund application of the Petitioner under section 54

of the CGST Act of the period July, 2023 to September, 2023 was

decided and the Respondent determined the net eligible refund at

Rs. 64,01,750/-.      The entire amount was adjusted against the

alleged outstanding demand pertaining to Financial Years 2017-

18, 2018-19, 2019-20 arising out of the Assessment Order dated

30/8/2022.      In view of the CBIC Circular dated 11/7/2024 by

which it was clarified that recovery shall be remained stayed upon

pre-deposit of prescribed amount, it was not open for the

Respondent No. 1         to adjust the amount of Rs. 64,01,750/-

towards the alleged outstanding demand pertaining to the

Financial Years     2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 arising out of the

Assessment Order dated 30/08/2022.



Talwalkar/Amk                    6
                                                        wp 12365-26.doc



12.         So far as the contention of Mr. Ochani, learned counsel

for the Respondents that the proceedings are not maintainable as

the trade name of the Petitioner is now amended, it is pertinent to

consider the stand of the Petitioner. These are issues that can be

gone into and decided by the Tribunal. Even otherwise the stand

of the Petitioner is that while filing the appeal under the GST Act,

once the GST Registration number is inserted, the name of the

entity gets auto-populated. Accordingly, the name of the entity in

the appeal before the Tribunal has auto-populated as Kiran

Medical Systems (A Division of Trivitron Healthcare Private

Limited). As the name gets auto-populated in the GST system, the

Petitioner/Appellant is not in a position to manually amend the

name of the Appellant in the appeal.           However, the GST

Registration number which is the only unique controlling number

has always been the same. The Petitioner is a company named

Trivitron Healthcare Private Limited.     It was always registered

under the same legal as well as trade name. It got its trade name

amended in the records of GST Department to “Kiran Medical

Systems” (A Division of Trivitron Healthcare Private Limited) on

18/05/2018.       This aspect obviously can be gone into by the



Talwalkar/Amk                   7
                                                         wp 12365-26.doc



Tribunal.

13.         The Petitioner having paid the pre-deposit of 10% of the

disputed amount at the stage of first appeal and has thereafter

paid a further 10% thereof on 19/08/2025, has thereby discharged

the entire pre-dposit of 20% of the disputed demand, and that the

Petitioner has, upon such payment, filed an appeal on 15/07/2026

before the Tribunal against the demand pertaining to the Financial

Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, whereby recovery of the

balance demand stands deemed to be stayed by operation of sub-

section 9 of Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with CBIC

Circular No. 224/18/2024 dated 11/07/2024.

14.         The Petitioner has preferred an appeal against the

impugned Refund Rejection Order dated 11/08/2025 in respect of

the refund for the period July, 2023 to September, 2023 on

09/11/2025, which appeal is presently pending before the First

Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the said Act.

15.         In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding

that the sum of Rs.64,01,750/- cannot be appropriated against the

demand pertaining to the Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and

2019-20, and that the appropriation already effected shall stand



Talwalkar/Amk                   8
                                                           wp 12365-26.doc



reversed and the said sum restored to the Petitioner within a

period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this Order.

Order accordingly.

16.         The Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority to decide

the appeal filed by the Petitioner on its own merits and in

accordance with law.       Our observations are limited only to the

reversal of the amount of Rs.64,01,750/- in view of the pre-deposit

made and nothing more.

17.         The Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.



(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                          (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Talwalkar/Amk                    9