TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the three impugned Refund Rejection Orders dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 6, the impugned Refund Rejection Order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the Respondent No.5, the impugned Refund Rejection Order 07.05.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 4 (Annexure A1 to A5), and impugned orders-in-appeal both dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexures A6 and A7) and the impugned order-in-appeal dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure A8)" 2. Heard Mr. P. Shah, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, Mr. M. I. D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....point, above matter has been appealed before Hon'ble Apex Court and Special leave petition has been filed, which is admitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court and litigation are going on and the matter is pending in the form of SLP No.13431 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of this, this office has earlier kept this matter sine die till the pronouncement of judgment by the Hon'ble Apex court, against which appellant has requested for early disposal of the matter. Therefore, in view of facts discussed above, Officers view point is confirmed at this stage, Appellant is not entitled for refund of the ITC as the appellant is a SEZ unit and in view of the provision of section 54 of the CGST Act read with Rule 89 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., that was challenged was rendered in terms of law laid down in Britannia's case supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.09.2025, disposed of the petition in following terms: "1. The High Court relying on its decision rendered in the case of "Britannia Industries Limited vs. Union of India" reported in 2020 G.S.T.L. 3 (Guj) accepted the arguments canvassed on behalf of the respondent herein-original petitioner that an SEZ Unit is entitled in law to claim the refund of unutilised ITC accumulated under Rule 89 of CGST Rules on the ground that exports are made without payment of tax under LUT. 2. Mr. Chandrashekhara Bharathi, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue submitted that Britannia Industries Limited (supra) was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in terms of the Britannia's case, the impugned orders are liable to be set aide. 10. At this stage, learned A.G.P. submits that in terms of Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Rule 89 of CGST Rules, refund of tax can be claimed by SEZ Unit if the services were for authorized operations as endorsed by a specified officer of the zone. In the present case, there is no such finding given by the authorities below. 11. As against, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that this point was never raised before the authorities below and, therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to deal with the same. 12. That being so, we are of the considered view that this matter will have to be remanded back to respondent No.6 - Assistant C....