AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for records pertaining to the Impugned Order issued u/s.54 of the MGST Act by Respondent no. 2 for period October 2022 to March 2023 (being Exhibits hereto) and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the same; ii Be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for records pertaining to the Impugned Past Period SCNs issued u/s.73 of the MGST Act by Respondent no. 2 for FYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 (being Exhibits hereto) and after going into the validity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Maharashtra. It is the Petitioner's contention that its services are zero rated supplies, and hence it had applied for refund of Input Tax Credit ('ITC'). The said refund claims were sanctioned for the period July-2017 to September-2022, however, for the period October-2022 to March-2023, Respondent No. 2 rejected the refund application of the Petitioner. 3. On 26th September 2023, the Petitioner filed a refund application for the unutilized ITC in form RFD-01 for the period October-2022 to March-2023, along with relevant documents. The said refund application was acknowledged on 10th October 2023 by issuance of Form RFD-01. On 6th November 2023 Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice No. DC/BANDRA-WEST_502/RFD 22-23/Zoitus Pharma/B-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner. It is the Petitioner's contention that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and also is de hors the allegations levelled in the impugned show cause notice dated 6th November 2023. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2, by a communication/ corrigendum dated 22nd December 2023 ('impugned corrigendum') amended the impugned order to contend that the Petitioner's services are exempted under the GST Laws. It is the Petitioner's contention that the aforesaid allegations were never raised in the impugned show cause notice, and also the said allegation was in excess of jurisdiction conferred upon Respondent No. 2 under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ('MGST Act'). 5. On 23rd January ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order and the impugned corrigendum have been passed without dealing/ adverting to the submissions made by the Petitioner, wherein the Petitioner had categorically raised the plea that the Petitioner is not an agent of ZSL, and hence had rightfully claimed the refund of ITC. He further submitted that the impugned corrigendum has been issued without having any authority under any provisions of law and further the determination of taxability of supply is not within the ambit of Section 54 of the CGST/MGST Act. He further submitted that the impugned order was passed in a cryptic manner contradicting itself in many places, and based on surmises and conjectures, and hence the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-20, are also erroneous and a hearing in respect thereof needs to be granted to the Petitioner. He further pointed out that Respondent No. 2, for the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25 has granted refund to the Petitioner for export of services under the same research and development agreement which has been entered into by the Petitioner with ZSL, and therefore the Respondents are seeking to shift stances in similar facts for prior periods, and the same is arbitrary and against the established principles of consistency in taxation statutes. 10. Per contra, Mr. Takke, learned AGP on behalf of the State has opposed the reliefs as prayed for in the petition and submitted that the impugned order is required to be upheld as the same is a we....