Bombay High Court
PCK COTTON PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is disposed without granting the relief sought, effectively rejecting the petitioner's request for a consolidated refund application.
Summary
PCK Cotton Pvt. Ltd. sought to file a consolidated refund application for Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the period December 2017 to February 2018 after having withdrawn earlier online refund applications and requesting re‑credit of the ITC. The respondents argued that the withdrawal was unconditional, the ITC had already been re‑credited, and that the petition was filed more than six and a half years after the relevant period, making the claim stale. The petitioner contended that the earlier withdrawal was not unconditional and that, in the absence of an online facility, a manual consolidated application could be filed under Rule 97A. The court noted the parties' contentions, observed that there is no specific provision for a fresh refund application after an unconditional withdrawal, and that the delay is considerable. Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petition without granting any relief, leaving the matter unresolved.
Issues considered
- Can a taxpayer file a fresh or consolidated GST refund application after having withdrawn earlier refund applications and requesting re‑credit of ITC?
- Was the withdrawal of the earlier refund applications unconditional, thereby precluding any further refund claim for the same period?
- Is the petition barred by limitation or delay, given that it was filed more than six and a half years after the fiscal year in question?
- Does Rule 97A permit manual filing of a consolidated refund application when an online facility is unavailable?
Subjects
- Input Tax Credit
- GST refund
- withdrawal of refund application
- limitation period
- manual filing
- consolidated refund application
- Rule 97A
Judgment
70-WP-603-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 603 OF 2025
PCK Cotton Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. .....Respondents
.....
Mr. Bharat Raichandani i/b Alaksha Legal, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ram Ochani a/w Ms. Megha Bajoria and Ms. Khushi P. Agarwal,
for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G. P., for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5-State.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 31st AUGUST 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. Learned Addl.G.P. vehemently opposed the Petition submitting
that there is no provision for filing an application for refund as such
a course is clearly barred by the stand taken by the Petitioner himself
vide a communication dated 29th August, 2018 at page no.39. It is
the submission of learned Addl.G.P. that the Petitioner himself has
withdrawn the refund applications filed for December, 2017 to
February 2018 and requested for issuance of an Order for re-
crediting of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of refund application.
Manisha 1/4
Digitally signed by
MANISHA MANISHA
BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA TALEKAR
TALEKAR Date: 2026.09.02
15:04:18 +0530
70-WP-603-2025.doc
It is submitted that once such a stand has been taken by the
Petitioner, it is then not open for the Petitioner to file the refund
application for the very said period.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
application made by the Petitioner for withdrawal of the refund
applications was not unconditional but the Petitioner wanted to file
consolidated refund application for a period of three months i.e.
December, 2017 to February, 2018. Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Laxmi Organic
Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [(2021) SCC OnLine Bom
10539] in support of his contentions so far as Rule 97A for manual
filing and process of the application is concerned.
4. Learned Addl.G.P. vehemently submitted that the Petitioner has
initially made an online application for grant of refund on 18 th July,
2018, 26th July, 2018 and 1st August, 2018 for the monthly periods
December, 2017, January, 2018 and February, 2018 respectively
towards accumulated ITC on inward supplies used for export of
goods. Thereafter, the Petitioner by letter dated 29 th August, 2018
withdrew all the refund applications for the reasons best known to it
Manisha 2/4
70-WP-603-2025.doc
and requested to re-credit the ITC to credit ledger. Accordingly, the
Nodal Officer issued Form RFD-06 for withdrawal of refund
applications on the system. Therefore, there is no question of
regenerating the earlier ARNs as the ITC refunded is already re-
credited to the Petitioner’s ECL on 7 th December, 2018 for the periods
December, 2017 to February, 2018 respectively.
5. It is submitted by learned Addl.G.P. that the present Petition is
filed after a period of more than six and a half years from the
impugned period i.e. FY-2017-2018. As regards the delay, the
Petitioner is trying to take the shelter of filing of Appeal as he was
pursuing the wrong remedy, however, the Appeal was filed in August,
2022 against the adjudication Order dated 10 th May, 2022. Therefore,
under the pretext of pursing the wrong remedy, the Petitioner cannot
try to revive its stale claim of the period FY-2017-2018 after the
period of more than six and a half years.
6. The Petitioner contends that he wants to file a consolidated
application and the previous withdrawal was not unconditional.
Considering that there is no facility for filing the consolidated
application for refund online, the Petitioner is permitted to file such
Manisha 3/4
70-WP-603-2025.doc
an application manually within a period of two weeks which shall be
considered by the Respondents on its own merits and in accordance
with law within a period of six weeks thereafter, after hearing the
application. It is made clear that, even the aspect of delay in
preferring the application and its consequences may be appropriately
dealt with by the Respondents. We make no observations on either
the maintainability of the application or on delay in filing the
application.
7. In view of above and keeping all contentions of the parties
open, Writ Petition No.603 of 2025 stands disposed of
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Manisha 4/4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.