Bombay High Court
Refex Industries Limited vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 25 March, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
502-WPL-10353-26.DOC
JYOTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAJESH
MANE
Digitally signed by
JYOTI RAJESH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
MANE
Date: 2026.03.27
19:28:14 +0530
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 10353 OF 2026
Refex Industries Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. V. Raghuraman Senior Advocate a/w. Mr Raghvendra C.R. a/w.
Sriraj G.Menon, Mr. Avesh Ganja, a/w. Mr. Sandesh Panchal i/b. Satyaki Law
Associates, for Petitioner.
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl.G.P. for Respondent-State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 25 MARCH 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard Mr. Raghuraman, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the Petitioner, and Ms. Jyoti Chavan, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the Respondent-Revenue.
2. At the outset, Mr. Raghuraman has drawn our attention to the prayers in the
present Petition, which, inter alia, challenge the Notification dated 28th December
2023 issued by the Respondent in exercise of its powers.
3. Our attention has also been invited to a recent order passed by this Court in
Rite Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.
1443 of 2025, dated 25th February 2026, wherein, following an earlier order
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shyam Udyog vs. Union of India &
Page 1 of 7
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:22:03 :::
502-WPL-10353-26.DOC
Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No. 10058 of 2025), which is extracted therein, the Petition
was admitted and interim relief came to be granted.The said order is required to be
noted, which reads thus:--
P.C.
1. We have heard Mr. Raghuraman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
2. The challenge in this petition is inter alia to the Notification dated 28 December,
2023 issued by the respondents exercising powers under Section 168A of the
Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
3. At the outset, Mr. Raghuraman has submitted that a similar issue fell for
consideration of this Court in Shyam Udyog vs. Union of India & Ors.(Writ
Petition (L) No. 10058 of 2025)1, in which a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
(Coram: B.P. Colabawalla, J. and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J.) passed the following
interim order dated 16 April, 2025:
"1. The above Writ Petition has been placed on board seeking
certain amendments as per the draft amendment tendered to the
Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and pursuing
the amendment sought, we find that the amendments are sought at
the pre-admission stage and therefore, there can be no impediment in
allowing the amendment. This is more so because the nature of the
Petition does not change in any way by allowing the aforesaid
amendment. In these circumstances, the draft amendment tendered
to the Court is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The
Petitioner is permitted to amend the above Writ Petition in terms of
the draft amendment. The amendment shall be carried out within a
period of one week from today. The amended copy of the Writ
Petition shall be served to all the Respondents within a period of one
week thereafter.
2. The above Writ Petition challenges the Notification No.
56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 issued by
Respondent No.1 (Union of India) and Notification No. 56/2023
dated 16th January, 2024 issued by Respondent No. 2 (State of
Maharashtra) exercising powers under Section 168A of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Consequently, the
Petitioner also seeks quashing of the impugned Order dated 12 th
August, 2024 passed by Respondent No.4 under Section 73(9) of the
MGST Act.
3. The short point in this Writ Petition is that the Notifications
issued under Section 168A, extending the time limits specified under
the CGST Act, are wholly illegal and ultra vires. The main ground of
challenge is that these Notifications have to be issued on the
recommendation of the GST Council. It is the case of the Petitioner
1 2025(4) TMI 1168
Page 2 of 7
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:22:03 :::
502-WPL-10353-26.DOC
that though the Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st
March, 2023 and the Notification No. 9/2023-State Tax dated 24th
May, 2023 are issued on the recommendation of the GST Council,
the subsequent Notifications, namely, Notification No. 56/2023-
Central Tax dated 28 December, 2023 and Notification No.
56/2023-State Tax dated 16th January, 2024 are not issued on the
recommendation of the GST Council. Since there has been non-
compliance of the provisions of Section 168A, the same are impugned
in the present Writ Petition.
4. The reason why the impugned order is challenged, is because if
the Notifications dated 28th December, 2023 and 16th January,
2024 are set aside, then, as a corollary, the impugned Order would
also have to go, as the same is passed beyond the extended period
prescribed by the Notifications dated 31 March 2023 and 24th May,
2023 respectively.
5. We find that in similar matters [starting from Evie Real Estate
Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra - Order dated 26 February 2025 in
WP 5146 of 2024], the petitions have been admitted and interim
relief has been granted. We therefore issue Rule. Respondent Nos. 1
to 4 waive service.
6. As far as the Interim Relief is concerned, there will be interim
relief in terms of prayer clause (h) which reads thus :-
"h. pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition,
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation
of the Impugned Order dated 12th August 2024 being
Exhibit C to this Petition;"
7. We grant liberty to the parties to apply in the event the matter
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is disposed of one way or the
other."
4. Mr. Raghuraman has also drawn our attention to the decision of the
Gauhati High Court in Barkataki Print and Media Services vs. Union of
India2, wherein the Court has quashed and set aside the Notification dated
28 December, 2023 extending the period for passing an order under Section
73(10) of CGST Act. It is submitted that the challenge to the said decision,
at the instance of revenue, is pending consideration before the Supreme
Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion
that as the substantive challenge is already pending before this Court in
Shyam Udyog (supra) as also the legal issues as involved are pending for
consideration of the Supreme Court in Barakati Print and Media Services
(supra), the petitioner would be required to be granted interim reliefs as
passed by this Court in Shyam Udyog (supra). Accordingly, we are inclined
to pass the following order:
2 (2024) 22 Centax 479 (Gau.)
Page 3 of 7
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:22:03 :::
502-WPL-10353-26.DOC
ORD E R
i) Rule. Respondents waive service.
(ii) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the impugned
order dated 23 August, 2024 shall remain stayed.
(iii) As a consequence of the orders (ii) above thereof, any coercive measures as
adopted, namely, blocking of electronic credit ledger of the petitioner as also the
attachment, if any, shall also stand stayed and/or vacated.
6. Ordered accordingly.
7. This petition to be tagged for Final Hearing along with Writ Petition (L) No.
10058 of 2025 (Shyam Udyog vs. Union of India & Ors.)
4. Mr. Raghuraman would accordingly submit that the orders passed by this
Court in Shyam Udyog vs. Union of India & Ors. and Rite Equipments Pvt. Ltd.
vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ought to be followed in the present case, as the
issues involved are identical.
5. Mr. Raghuraman has further submitted that there is quite a peculiarity in
the present case. He submits that within a period of 12 days from the date of the
impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, recovery proceedings were
initiated against the Petitioner. In particular, the electronic credit ledger of the
Petitioner was debited on 17th February 2026, thereby reducing the available
credit to nil as a consequence of the impugned order passed against the Petitioner.
6. He submits that the interim relief granted by this Court in Shyam Udyog as
also in Rite Equipments Pvt. Ltd. would enure to the benefit of the Petitioner,
insofar as the prayers in the present Petition in seeking restoration of the re-credit
of an amount of Rs. 1,10,23,478/-, which has been debited by the department.
7. In this context, our attention has been drawn to prayer clause (j) of the
Petition, which reads thus:--
Page 4 of 7
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:22:03 :::
502-WPL-10353-26.DOC
(j) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to:
(a) Direct the concerned respondents to re-credit an amount of
Rs.1,10,23,478/- already debited in the electronic credit ledger towards the tax
demands to ensure parity with other litigants who have been afforded the same
interim protection of stay of recoveries.
(b) Restrain the Respondents, their subordinates, servants and agents from in
any manner whatsoever taking any action for the recovery of the amounts
confirmed in the impugned OIA dated 05.02.2026.
(c) such ad-interim and/or interim order as may be granted as this Court deems
fit.
8. In support of his contentions, Mr. Raghuraman has also drawn our attention
to the Notification dated 17th September 2025 issued by the Government of India
on the recommendations of the GST Council, in exercise of powers conferred
under sub-section (1) of Section 112 of the CGST Act. By the said notification,
"30th June 2026" has been notified as the outer date up to which appeals may be
filed before the Appellate Tribunal in cases where the orders sought to be
challenged were communicated to the concerned person on or before 1st April
2026. In respect of orders communicated on or after April 2026, the appeals are
required to be filed within a period of three months from the date of
communication of the appellate order. The submission is to the effect that even
before the expiry of the prescribed period of appeal, the impugned recovery action
has been resorted to, and the Petitioner's electronic credit ledger has been debited.
It is submitted that such action has purportedly been taken under Section 78 of the
CGST Act.
9. The submissions of Mr. Raghuraman are opposed by Ms. Chavan, learned
Additional Government Pleader, who submits that the action taken by the
Department is justified and that there is nothing inappropriate or unlawful in
Page 5 of 7
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:22:03 :::
502-WPL-10353-26.DOC
debiting the Petitioner's electronic credit ledger.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, we are of the opinion that the challenge as raised in the present Petition is
similar to the challenge as raised in the case of Shyam Udyog vs. Union of India &
Ors.(supra) and Rite Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra).
Similar orders, therefore, are required to be passed in the present case.
11. We are persuaded to accept the contentions urged on behalf of the
Petitioner that the action of debiting the Petitioner's electronic credit ledger could
not have been taken when as the same was contrary to the Notification dated 17th
September 2025, particularly when the period for filing an appeal was yet to
expire. This position is also reinforced by the provisions of Section 78 of the CGST
Act, which provide a period of three months from the date of service of the order,
before any recovery proceedings could be initiated. Also, no reasons, as required to
be recorded by the concerned officer under the proviso to Section 78 of the CGST
Act, have been shown to us, so as to justify departure from the statutory period of
three months prescribed under the said provision. In these circumstances, we are
inclined to grant interim reliefs as prayed for, insofar as re-credit of the amounts
debited by the Department is concerned.
12. Hence, the following order:--
ORDER
1. Rule. The Respondent waives service.
Page 6 of 7Mane ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:22:03 ::: 502-WPL-10353-26.DOC
2. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, the impugned order dated 5th February 2026 passed by the Appellate Authority shall remain stayed.
3. There shall also be interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (j)(a) and
(j)(b) of the Petition.
4. The Respondent shall file its reply affidavit within a period of four weeks from today.
5. To be listed alongwith Writ Petition (L) No.10058/2025(Shyam Udyot Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Writ Petition No.1443/2024 (Rite Equipment Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 7 of 7 Mane ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:22:03 :::