M/S RUNGTA AND SONS RUNGTA INDUSTRIES COMPOUND KASHIPUR vs UNION OF INDIA

Court
Uttarakhand High Court


2026:UHC:3491-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY

Writ Petition (M/S) No.1162 of 2022
th
7 May, 2026

M/s Rungta and Sons, Rungta Industries Compound,
Kashipur
-----Petitioner
Versus

Union of India and Others ----Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner through V.C.
Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India/
respondent no.1.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent no.4 through V.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT : ( per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J. )


1. The present writ petition has been filed praying
for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to
refund the GST amount of ₹10,23,075/- deposited by the
petitioner at the time of purchase of rejected seeds of
wheat and paddy from Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai
Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
the “Corporation”) in the year 2017.
1


2026:UHC:3491-DB
2. The petitioner has also challenged the order
passed by the Corporation disposing of its representation
filed in this regard.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Although name of Shri N.S. Pundir, learned
counsel is printed in the cause list for respondent no.5 but
he is not present.
5. The petitioner purchased rejected seeds of wheat
and paddy from the Corporation in the year 2017. The
Corporation deducted a sum of ₹10,23,484/- towards GST
from the security deposit of the petitioner.
6. The case of the petitioner is that, as per advance
ruling given by the Appellate Authority, Goods and Services
Tax in the case of M/s Sam Overseas, rejected wheat seeds
or rejected paddy seeds does not attract any GST unless
the seeds are put in a unit container and sold in registered
brand name.
7. The specific case of the petitioner is that the
rejected seeds of wheat and paddy were not sold in unit
containers in any brand name, therefore, no GST was
payable. The petitioner applied for refund of the amount
deducted towards GST by the Corporation but the
Corporation did not refund the same. Therefore, the
petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by means
of WPMS No.1272 of 2020, which was disposed of by this
2


2026:UHC:3491-DB
Court by order dated 13.08.2020 directing the Corporation
to decide the representation of the petitioner dated
29.09.2019.
8. In pursuance of the said direction, the
Corporation has decided the representation by impugned
order dated 16.10.2020 wherein the Corporation has not
disputed the fact that the GST amount deducted by it is
liable to be refunded. It is stated that it had submitted
several applications including the one on 01.06.2019 before
the State Tax Department, Rudrapur for refund of the GST
amount. It is further stated that another representation
dated 16.08.2020 was also sent to State Tax Department
and its copy was also furnished to the petitioner along with
the order.
9. It is stated that the petitioner has already been
informed of the steps taken by the Corporation for refund
of the GST amount. With the aforesaid observations, the
representation has been disposed of.
10. The Corporation has not disputed the fact that
the GST amount deducted by it from the security deposit of
the petitioner is liable to be refunded to the petitioner.
However, it has not refunded the same solely on the plea
that it had already applied for refund but refund has not
been made to it.
3


2026:UHC:3491-DB
11. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent no.2 wherein the stand taken is that the
advance ruling given by the Appellate Tribunal would be
binding only on the concerned applicant and the
jurisdictional officer and the petitioner cannot be extended
benefit of the same.
12. In paragraph no.10 of the counter affidavit, it is
stated that it was open to respondent no.5 to claim refund
within the prescribed time period. However, no explanation
has been offered with regard to application stated to have
been filed by the Corporation for refund on 01.06.2019 and
again on 16.08.2020.
13. As the basic fact that GST was not payable on
the transactions in question is not in dispute, we are of the
considered opinion that the department cannot be
permitted to retain the amount any further.
14. Ms. Punja Banga, learned counsel appearing for
the revenue states that for refund of the amount
appropriate application has to be filed in RFD-01, as per
Rule 89.
15. In view of the above, we dispose of the writ
petition with direction to the Corporation to move
application in appropriate form for refund of the GST
amount within two weeks from the date of communication
of the instant order and we further provide that as soon as
4


2026:UHC:3491-DB
such application is made, the department will refund the
amount to respondent no.5 forthwith. Respondent no.5
shall in turn refund the amount of the petitioner within two
weeks of receipt of the amount by it from the department.
16. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
17. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.


(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)




(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 07.05.2026
SS

SUKHBANT
SINGH
Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd1
29a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD
2B7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT
SINGH
Date: 2026.05.08 13:07:49 +05'30'
5