TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 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 of the provisions set aside and quash the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 (Exhibit "A") as being passed without jurisdiction and authority of law; b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or any other writ, order or 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, hold that the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 (Exhibit "A") has been passed in complete violation of principles of judicial discipline. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....echnology Park of India (STPI) for the software export operation, and the Petitioner provides software development and related services without payment of tax under Letter of Undertaking (LUT). ii. Before 2017, the aforesaid software services were provided by Varian Medical Systems India Software Private Limited. However, in the year 2017, the said company was merged into the Petitioner company, i.e., Varian Medical Systems International (India) Software Private Limited, through the scheme of amalgamation, and consequently, an order giving effect to the amalgamation was passed by the National Company Law Tribunal dated 20th December 2017. iii. During the period May 2023 to January 2024 (relevant period), the Petitioner ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so submitted a copy of the reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice. However, Respondent No. 3, without considering the submissions made by the Petitioner, passed the order dated 27th June 2025 (impugned order), rejecting the claim application filed by the Petitioner under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, seeking to recover the aforesaid refund on the ground that the same were erroneously granted to the Petitioner. 3. It is in the backdrop of the above facts that the Petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the refund claim, has filed the present Petition. 4. Mr. Bharat Raichandani, along with Ms. Bhagrati Sahu, instructed by UBR Legal Advocates appeared for the Petitioner, and Ms.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d outside India and the supplier of services was located in India, pursuant to which the Petitioner was eligible for refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) in terms of Section 16 of the IGST Act, read with Section 24(3) of the CGST Act. He therefore submitted that since all these crucial facts and submissions were not considered by Respondent No. 3 prior to the passing of the impugned order, the same would render it a non-speaking order. He therefore submitted that in view of the fact that the impugned order is based on a non-application of mind and was not a reasoned and speaking order, the consequent rejection of the refund as claimed by the Petitioner is also bad in law, and hence a fresh hearing needed to be accorded to the Petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the orders referred to by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as enumerated above, we find substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner. We find that no specific finding has been recorded in the impugned order before rejecting the refund application as claimed by the Petitioner, and therefore a reasoned and speaking order is required to be passed by Respondent No. 3 prior to the rejection of refund. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from the vice of being a non-speaking order vis-a-vis the rejection of the refund claim of the Petitioner. Further, we are also of the view that the impugned order, without considering the submissions of the Petitioner, has erroneously held that the Petitioner is an intermediary s....