HIRENKUMAR VALJIBHAI SANKHALAVA vs OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8399 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
HIRENKUMAR VALJIBHAI SANKHALAVA
Versus
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
=============================================
Appearance:
MR ASHUTOSH S DAVE(8865) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS TANUSHREE SHRIMAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 25/06/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The matter was heard in the first half. Since we were not
inclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of
alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section
107 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short
‘the Act’), on the request of learned advocate Mr.Ashutosh
Dave the matter was listed in second session. Learned
advocate, Mr.Ashutosh Dave, on instructions of the petitioner,
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
has submitted that the petitioner would like to invite the order
on merits instead of availing the statutory alternative remedy
of filing an appeal against the impugned order.
2. The petitioner along with other persons viz. Gauriben
Sankhalva, Shilpaben Sankhalva, Sanjaybhai Sankhalva,
Valjibhai Sankhalva and Sankhalva are managing a coaching
institute in the name of “Alpha-1 Tuition Classes and Hostel”,
which provides the coaching services to students studying in
th th
4 and 5 grade in Gujarati Medium.
2.1 A search was undertaken by the GST authorities at the
premises of the petitioner on 06.10.2023 under the provision
of Section 67(2) of the Act after taking authorization of the
Joint Commissioner of State Tax-10, Rajkot. The said search
continued till 10.10.2023 and the respondent authorities
seized various documents under the process and also recorded
the statements of the petitioner. Necessary panchnamas were
also drawn. A categorical statement is made in writ petition in
paragraph No.3.2 to the extent that after the panchnama was
drawn in presence of the panchas, recording that the petitioner
had agreed to pay tax, however, some time was sought in
order to make the arrangement of the funds. It is alleged by
the petitioner that the petitioner was compelled to make the
payment of tax, interest and penalty under duress and threat
that too without any adjudication for Financial Year (for short
‘F.Y.’) 2018-19 to F.Y. 2023-24. Accordingly, a collective
amount was paid by the petitioner of Rs.1,96,25,330/-.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that such amount was paid
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
under the protest, which forms part of form GST DRC 03.
Nothing happened for a period of almost 2 years. Thereafter,
the petitioner woke up from slumber and preferred an
application in form GST RFD 01 under Section 54(1) of the Act
on 28.08.2025 under the category of ‘any other’ seeking the
refund of the amount tax, interest and penalty.
2.3 It appears that thereafter, the respondent issued an order
Form DRC 04 on 19.11.2025 acknowledging voluntary payment
and ultimately, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the
impugned order dated 03.02.2026 in form GST RFD 06. These
proceedings were undertaken after the petitioner was issued
show cause notice dated 06.01.2026 and upon filing of the
reply dated 30.01.2026.
3. It is contended by the learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner that the impugned action of the respondent is
required to be quashed and set aside since the order under
DRC 04 was issued on 19.11.2025, after almost 2 years of
payment/confirming that the amount deposited is still lying
with the Government. In this regard, reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Suraj
Mangar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax,
[2025] 176 taxmann.com 951 (Calcutta) . It is submitted that
the tax was coercively and under threat recovered from the
petitioner and hence, the entire action is illegal. In support of
his submission, reliance is placed on the Supreme Court
judgment in the case of Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India ,
[2025] 171 taxmann.com 832(SC) . Reliance is also placed on
the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
Court in the case of Gunnam Infra Projects (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of
India , [2025] 180 taxmann.com 492 (Karnataka) . Thus, it is
submitted that the payment of the tax as referred in DRC 03 is
not voluntary in nature but, coercive recovery made during the
course of the search. It is also submitted that the respondents
have illegally rejected the application filed for the refund
without issuing any notice either under Section 73 or 74 of the
Act. It is also submitted that the petitioner pays the tax
regularly and hence, on the basis of overall documentary
evidences which are produced on record, the recovery of the
tax is coercive, under threat and subsequent rejection of the
refund application is also de hors the statue. Thus, it is urged
that the action of the respondent may be set aside.
3.1 It is submitted that a temporary registration was also
issued in the name of the petitioner however, no notice was
given before opening such temporary registration for coercive
payment of the tax. He has also referred to the Circular dated
18.11.2019 and urged that the proceedings against the
petitioner has been conducted de hors the guidelines issued in
the said Circular.
4. Vehemently opposing the present writ petition, learned
Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the writ
petition is ill-conceived as vague allegation of coercive
recovery is alleged. It is contended that and since the
petitioner is having an efficacious alternative remedy of filing
an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, the same may be
rejected. She has pointed out the record of such proceedings
which consists of various panchnamas. She has referred that
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
during the search and after the search was completed, the
respondent authority – State Tax Officer along with the
panchas who have recorded the statements of the petitioner
and other employees, would reveal that the tax amount was in
fact voluntarily paid. It is submitted that at the end of the
search, the proceedings were recorded in question and answer
form in which, the petitioner has admitted while answering to
the question No.15 that he is not having any GST registration
and since his services gets included within the statutory
provisions of 18% and looking to the turnover, he is required to
pay the tax. Ultimately, he agreed to pay such amount and
accordingly, a temporary registration was issued to him for
paying the tax and penalty amount.
4.1 Learned AGP has submitted that after the amount was
voluntarily paid by the petitioner, for the first time, after delay
of almost two years, he filed an application dated 28.08.2025
in form of GST RFD 01 seeking refund of the tax of
Rs.1,12,74,296/- plus interest at Rs.66,59,890/- plus penalty at
Rs.16,91,144/-. In response, the respondent issued a show
cause notice to the petitioner in form GST RFD 08 which the
petitioner replied in form GST RFD 09 and after granting
personal hearing on 16.01.2026, the impugned order dated
03.02.2026 was passed. She has submitted that prior to that
the petitioner was issued form DRC 04 on 19.11.2025. It is
submitted that in fact the entire case of the petitioner is
premised on coercive recovery, which is required to be
disbelieved in view of the panchnamas drawn by the GST
authorities during the search. It is contended that the
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
petitioner never raised any objection or complaint about the
threat or coercive recovery before any authority and hence,
there appears to be afterthought to claim the refund after
almost 2 years of depositing the same by filing the refund
application and obtaining the orders of rejecting the same. In
support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Innovators
Facade Systems Ltd. Vs. Assistant Additional Director General
of GST Investigation, [2024] 160 taxmann.com 747 (Bombay) .
Thus, it is urged that writ petition may not be entertained.
5. The facts which are established from the records are as
under:
5.1 The petitioner along with other persons is running a
coaching institute in the name and style of “Alpha-1 Tuition
Classes and Hostel”.
5.2 The premises of the institute was searched by the GST
authorities from 06.10.2023 till 10.10.2023 under the provision
of Section 67(2) of the Act. Various documents were seized
and statements were also recorded by drawing the
panchnamas during this period.
5.3 We have extensively perused the contents of the
panchnama. The contents of the search proceedings reveal
that the petitioner has voluntarily agreed to pay the tax
amount since no GST registration was obtained, and the
institution was being run sans registration number. In the
panchnama recorded on 10.10.2023, the following statement
is recorded, which is translated as under:
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
“ During the search proceedings, the trader has given a
written undertaking. The trader is not registered (URO) under
the GST and during the search proceedings, in order to pay
the tax liability, he has consented to issue a “temporary
number
”.
Thus, it appears on an undertaking given by the
petitioner, a temporary GST number was issued for payment
of tax.
5.4 At the end of the search proceedings , the respondent
authorities along with the panchas, have prepared an order
containing questionnaire by referring to various provisions of
the Act more particularly, Section 70 of the Act. The relevant
questions and answer to the same are translated as under:
“ Question No.3: On scrutiny of the account papers, you
are entitled to have a GST number and hence, are you
having the GST number?.
Answer: ‘No, he does not have any such registration
number’.
Question No.10 : On verification of accounts Alpha
Classes, Ms.Alfa Tuition Classes amd along with other
four branches, it is noticed that for year 2017-18, 377
students, for 2019-2020-393 students, for 2020-2021-311
students, for 2021-2022-354 students, for 2022-2023-459
students, thus total 1000 students are shown. What do
you have to state?
Answer: I agree with the number of students as
mentioned by you in the present premises, moreover as
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
stated herein above in the question, the aforesaid
number of students have taken the coaching.
Q uestion No.13: Have your collected fees from the
students for 2018-19 till today @Rs.30,000/- and more
than Rs.30,000/- for the years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-
22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.
Answer: Though I have collected an amount of
Rs.35,000/- for the year 2019-20, they have issued the
receipt of Rs.30,000/- only and Rs.5000/- has been taken
in cash.
5.5 Similarly for the rest of the years, though they have
collected fees of Rs.35,000/-, they have given the receipt of
Rs.30,000/- only.
5.6. In question No.14, he has admitted that they have not
shown the amount of cash in their account books.
5.7. In response to Question No.15, regarding paying the tax
amount of Rs.1,84,74,300/- along with interest of
Rs.69,04,186/- as well as penalty of Rs.27,71,145/-, he has
positively responded to the same and has categorically made a
statement that he is ready to pay the amount.
“Question No.18: At present, at the end of ongoing
investigation, a temporary registration has been issued to
you by us to deposit the raised demand; therefore now,
when will you apply for obtaining a regular GST
registration number?
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
Answer: Upon deposit of the demand raised at the end of
the said investigation by me, I shall apply to obtain a
regular GST registration number.”
5.8 Finally, at the end the competent authority has recorded
thus:
“Thus, I state and record the aforementioned statement in a
fully conscious state, in a non-intoxicated condition, and
without succumbing to any kind of pressure, coercion,
threat, or intimidation; thereafter, all the answers to the
aforementioned question numbers 1 to 18 are exactly as
stated by me and are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, and furthermore, during the course of all these
proceedings, none of my social or religious sentiments have
been hurt, nor has any financial loss been caused to me. In
exchange whereof, I affix my signatures on all pages of this
statement.”
5.9 Thus, from the tenor of the proceedings and
panchnamas, we do not find any semblance of coercive
recovery or threat issued to the petitioner. It is evident that the
petitioner voluntarily discharged the outstanding tax liability,
given that he lacked registration under the GST, and collected
fees, partly in cash.
6. Keeping these facts in mind, we cannot ignore the
subsequent conduct of the petitioner. On 10.10.2023, when
the proceedings got over, and he paid the tax, after about 2
years, he woke from the slumber and filed an application
seeking refund on 28.08.2025 in form GST RFD 01 claiming
refund of tax of Rs.1,12,74,296/- plus interest at Rs.66,59,890/-
plus penalty at Rs.16,91,144/-. For 2 years, the petitioner did
not complain about the threat/coercion given by the GST
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
authorities to any superiors or any police authorities. Thus, the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner about coercive
recovery, is nothing but an afterthought to claim the refund of
the tax, which he had voluntarily paid.
7. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of the Bombay
High Court in the case of Innovators Facade Systems Ltd. Vs.
Assistant Additional Director General of GST Investigation,
[2024] 160 taxmann.com 747 (Bombay), wherein, the Bombay
High Court dealing with the issue of coercive recovery has held
thus:
“7. In our opinion, in reality or genuinely if the petitioner
was to be coerced, as a prudent legal person would resort, the
petitioner could have made complaints and/or representation
on such actions of the officers, which in law can certainly be
regarded as highhanded and illegal. However, the petitioner
did not even whisper anything of such kind, in the several
letters addressed to the authorities including in answering the
summons, to say that such amount was recovered by the
department under coercion, much less to raise the same
before the appropriate police authorities. Hence, a case of
such nature being directly made out in the writ petition de
hors any material to that effect would not give any impetus to
the petitioner's case of any coercion by the department. In
this view of the matter, such factual dispute as to whether any
coercive methods were adopted by the respondents and that
such amounts were deposited under duress and coercion
certainly cannot be conclusively ascertained and/or gone into
in the proceedings of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
8. The Court cannot be oblivious that there are several
cases where the assessee is conscious and is aware that ere
are substantial taxes due and payable by the assessee and/or
there is substantial recovery from the assessee, in such
circumstances, like in the present case after search and
seizure action was initiated, to buy peace, the assessee may
voluntarily deposit the amounts. It is hence not unlikely that
the assessee, to mitigate the circumstances and/or avoid legal
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
proceedings being initiated against it, voluntarily deposited
the tax amounts. Such position being taken by the assessee is
not unknown to the tax jurisprudence. Thus, any such amount
voluntarily deposited, in such circumstances, cannot be
categorized as a deposit under coercion. In this regard, there
cannot be a straight jacket and/or a blanket opinion which
could, at all, be rendered by the Court as any action taken by
the department is required to be tested on its own facts.
11. At this stage, nonetheless, learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that similar issue was raised before the
Madras High Court in the case Shri. Nandhi Dhall Mills India
(P.) Ltd. v. Senior Intelligence Officer, Director General of
Goods & Service Tax, Trichy [2021] 127 taxmann.com 31/86
GST 649 (Madras). We find that the Court in such decision was
not confronted with the facts as in the present proceedings
and more particularly, the assessee taking a position of
addressing such letter (dated 13 October 2022 (supra)), as
addressed by the petitioner to the respondents, which was
never withdrawn. Our observations in regard to non-
applicability of the decision are fortified from reading of
paragraph 27 of the said decision. We thus find that such
judgment is certainly not applicable in the facts of the present
proceedings.
13. We may also observe that when an assessee comes
before the Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution and that too making a serious grievance that the
department had coerced the assessee to deposit the tax
amounts, certainly as to whether it is genuinely a coercion or
whether it was a voluntary deposit, as seen in the present
case, is purely a disputed question of fact. Such question
cannot be gone into and appreciated in the proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact, in such circumstances,
a tax already being deposited and a relief of refund thereof
being sought in considering grant of such relief in the
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and that too
for refund of money, would amount to the Court converting
proceedings of a writ petition into proceedings akin to a
proceeding of a civil suit, as necessarily it would require
appreciation of evidence. Considering the settled principles of
law as laid down in catena of decisions, such exercise is not
possible to be undertaken in the summary, discretionary
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, albeit in a
given case, the Court may chose to exercise its discretion, in
the event, facts are absolutely glaring and gross that a
reasonable body of persons cannot resort to a highhanded
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
and illegal action.”
8. We adopt the view expressed by the Bombay High Court,
wherein the High Court has examined the allegations of
coercive recovery levelled by the tax payer. It is held that if
the tax payer was genuinely coerced, as a prudent legal
person, would have resorted to filing of complaints or
representation on such officers, who have shown
highhandedness, and since he had not done so the allegation
of coercive recovery cannot be believed. It is also held that the
factual dispute as to whether any coercive methods were
adopted by the respondents and that such amounts were
deposited under duress and coercion certainly cannot be
conclusively ascertained and/or gone into in the proceedings of
a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. So far as the belated passing of order of form GST DRC
04 is concerned, we may at this stage refer to the provision of
Section 74(8) of the Act, which reads as under:
“74. Determination of tax not paid or short paid or
erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly
availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any wilful
misstatement or suppression of facts.
XXX
(8) Where any person chargeable with tax under sub-section
(1) pays the said tax along with interest payable under section
50 and a penalty equivalent to twenty-five per cent. of such
tax within thirty days of issue of the notice, all proceedings in
respect of the said notice shall be deemed to be concluded.”
10. The provisions of sub-section (8) explicate that where any
person chargeable with tax, pays the said tax with interest
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
payable under Section 50 of the Act and penalty, all the
proceedings in respect of the said notice shall be deemed to be
concluded. In the present case, the petitioner had voluntarily
paid all the tax amount along with penalty as he was caught
red-handed by the GST authorities, operating the institution
collecting the fees in cash without any GST registration. The
proceedings, thus, concluded on 10.10.2023 when tax liability
was satisfied voluntarily. Thereafter, FORM DRC 04 was issued
on 19.11.2025. The issuance of FORM DRC 04 under Rule 142
of GST rules, is an acknowledgment of voluntary payment of
outstanding tax liability. There is no specific time limit
provided under the Rules for issuance of DRC 04. In wake of
the fact that the petitioner had accepted his tax liability
voluntarily, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on
issuance of FORM DRC 04 on 19.11.2025, since there was no
dispute either raised by the petitioner or the department had
taken any action disputing the tax liability for a span of almost
two years. The proceedings got concluded on 10.10.2023, after
the petitioner deposited the amount on his request to open the
temporary GST registration number. Thus, the conduct of the
petitioner during the search proceedings, which went for
06.10.2023 till 10.10.2023, and subsequently demonstrates
that he has alleged coercive recovery of tax by the GST
Officials as an afterthought in order to claim refund. Hence, the
respondents were constrained to issue notice in FORM GST
RFD-08 under Rule 92(3) of the GST Rules for rejection of
refund application. Ultimately, after giving ample opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner, his application was rejected vide
order dated 03.02.2026 in FORM GST RFD-06.
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
11. We may at this stage refer to the provision of Section 54
contained in Chapter – XI of the Act, which governs the refund
of the tax. The petitioner has filed the application GST RFD-01
under Section 54 of the Act on 28.08.2025. The relevant
provision of Section 54 is incorporated as under:
“SECTION 54 : Refund of tax
(1) Any person claiming refund of any tax and interest, if any,
paid on such tax or any other amount paid by him, may make
an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant
date in such form and manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that a registered person, claiming refund of any
balance in the electronic cash ledger in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (6) of section 49, may claim such
refund in the return furnished under section 39 in such manner
as may be prescribed.”
The provision of Section 54 of the Act will only come into
play, if it is established that the amount of tax was either not
payable or it was paid in excess. The petitioner has to establish
the eligibility of refund under Section 54 of the Act read with
Rule 89 and Rule 92 of GST Rules. In the present case, on the
request and undertaking given by the petitioner, the petitioner
has voluntarily deposited the quantified tax liability after he
was issued a temporary registration number. The tax and
penalty have been quantified on the basis of the data
examined from the material found during the search. The
authorities have calculated the number of students from the
documents and the fees collected by them both in cheque and
cash. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the impugned
order dated 03.02.2026. Reliance placed on the Circular dated
18.11.2019, by the petitioner will not come to his rescue in
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
wake of the present facts. The said Circular has been issued by
the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs regulating
the process of filing and processing the applications for refund
electronically. Similarly, the case laws cited by the petitioner
is also an exercise in futility. In the case of Gunnam Infra
Projects (supra) , the Karnataka High Court has examined the
recovery of taxes from a registered tax payer by way of
coercion, since the record did not disclose that the amount
paid was voluntarily. The facts of the case also suggest that
there was no quantification of the amount since the material
was seized. In the present case, the search has taken place
from 06.10.2023 to 10.10.2023. All the materials were
examined in presence of petitioner and panchas. The
petitioner has accepted the number of students and the
quantum of fees collected from the students. The exact
number of students for each year has also been disclosed from
the material found during the search. Reliance placed on the
decision of Apex Court in the case of Radhika
Agarwal(supra) is also ill-conceived since the same deals
with powers of arrest by the Customs officer under section 104
of the Customs Act, 1962. In the case of Suraj
Mangar(supra) , the Calcutta High Court while examining the
case of a registered dealer whose refund application was
rejected by doubting his business premises, though he was
exporting his goods after being granted GST registration from
the same premises has held that time limit of 60 days in
processing the refund under of Section 54(7) of the Act is
mandatory. Thus, the decisions on which reliance is placed by
learned advocate appearing for the petitioner will not remotely
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/8399/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
apply to the facts of the instant case.
12. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby
rejected. The petitioner has invited the order on merits
though he was asked to avail the alternative efficacious
remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
NEHA /13
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 13:04:05 IST 2026