Bombay High Court
K LINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed as there is no matter left for consideration.
Summary
K Line (India) Private Limited filed a writ petition challenging the refund of taxes claimed from the Union of India and other respondents. The respondents informed the Court that the refund application would be processed by the Designated Officer within six weeks, in accordance with the law. The Court noted that the present petition is fully covered by its earlier judgment in K Line India Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors. dated 15 April 2026. It further directed that the refund order be made under Rules 90 and 92 of the CGST Rules, without being influenced by the earlier orders. Since there was no remaining issue for adjudication, the Court disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate procedure for deciding the petitioner's tax refund application under the CGST Rules?
- Whether the earlier judgments in K Line India Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors. affect the present petition.
Legislation cited
- Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules — s. 90, 92
Subjects
- tax refund
- CGST Rules
- writ petition
- jurisdiction
- disposal
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
RUPALI
RUPALI RAJESH 4-WP-3757-2026.doc
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
2026.08.20
13:28:46
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3757 OF 2026
K Line (India) Private Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Bharat Raichandani i/b UBR Legal for the Petitioner.
Mr. Subir Kumar a/w Ms. Sngeeta Yadav, Ms. Ashita Aggarwal for the
Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Mr. Milind More, Addl.G.P a/w Mr. Himanshu Takke, A.G.P for the
Respondent-State.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL JJ.
DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :
1. Both the Counsel fairly submitted that the present matter
is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of K
Line India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in
WPL/36200/2023 a/w WP/4454/2024, WP/4467/2024,
WP/4804/2024, WP/4911/2024, WP/5111/2024 & WP/3440/2025
on 15th April, 2026.
Wakodikar 1/2
4-WP-3757-2026.doc
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent states that
the refund application filed by the petitioner would be decided by
the Designated Officer in accordance with law, within a period of six
weeks from the date the copy of this order is presented to him.
3. The order would be passed on such refund application as
per the provisions of rules and more particularly, Rules 90 and 92 of
the CGST Rules without being influenced by the earlier orders.
4. In light of the statement made by the learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent, nothing survives for further
consideration in the aforesaid petition.
5. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.