TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adodara under the provisions of Sec. 107 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and further allow the refund application preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of Sec. 54(3) of the Act and under Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). 5. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under: 5.1 The petitioner is a Special Economic Zone Unit (SEZ) engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing medicines worldwide inter alia authorized to operate at Special Economic Zone at Dahej District. The petitioner is also registered under the provisions of the Act. 5.2 It is the case of the petitioner that it being the SEZ Unit, is the recipient of input services which are proportionately distributed by the Input Service Distributor (ISD) in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On the distribution of input services, the petitioner attracts Integrated Goods and Service Tax i.e. I.G.S.T. However, the petitioner is making zero rated supplies, and therefore, the petitioner is not able to utilize the credit that has been lying in the Electr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under the guise that the respondent authority had filed review application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the disposal of the Special Leave Petition preferred against order of this Court in case of Britannia Industries Ltd (Supra). 5.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 18.02.2025, passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Anandodaya Mishra appearing for the petitioner, submitted that this Court has pronounced various judgements interpreting the refund of Accumulated ITC under Sec. 54(3) of the Act and the Appellate Authority being a statutory authority under the CGST Act, was duty bound to comply with the law laid down by this Court. 6.1 Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, relying on para 8 of the impugned order dated 18.02.2025, submitted that any deviation from the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court would amount to judicial indiscipline and would under mine the law. Relying on the decision in the case of M/s. Britannia Industries Ltd (supra), learned advocate Mr. Anandodaya Mishra for the petitioner submitted that the ratio as laid down in the decision is squarely ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the refund under the provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules as input tax credit is distributed by the input service distributor." 6.2 Learned advocate Mr. Anandodaya Mishra relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. IPCA Laboratories Ltd vs. Union of India & Ors., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 638 of 2021, wherein it is held that the SEZ unit is eligible for refund of ITC of IGST lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger under Sec. 54 of the Act. 7. In view of such submissions, learned advocate Mr. Anandodaya Mishra has submitted to allow the present petition and grant the refund to the writ petitioners. 8. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondents on the basis of the affidavit-in-reply has submitted that the judgement of this Court dated 11.03.2020 in the case of M/s. Britannia (supra), as quoted by the petitioner would not be applicable in the facts of the present case since the petitioner was situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and had filed an application for refund in FORM GST RFD-01A with regard to the credit of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) distributed by Input Service Distributor (ISD) for the ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the refund of Input Tax Credit Refund filed by the units located in the Special Economic Zones, in respect of tax paid on inward supplies. Therefore, in absence of any mandate in the governing Act and Rules made thereunder, or Notification / Circular of the like, the petitioner should not have been granted refund and hence the petitioner's contention before the appellate authority was rejected following the CGST/IGST laws and Rules applicable at the relevant time. 8.6 In wake of such submissions, learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah has requested to reject the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the material on record, the issue is in a very narrow compass as to whether the writ petitioner being a SEZ Unit registered under the Special Economic Zone Act, would be eligible for grant of refund and entitled to the Input Tax Credit on the services received while making zero rated supply. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Britannia (supra) as it had been held that the input service distributor i.e. ISD as defined under Sec.2(61) of the CGST Act is an office of supplier of th....