Epiroc Mining India Limited Vs Union of India
Date: November 6, 2025
Subject Matter
Refund Rejection Set Aside: Taxpayer Allowed to Submit Additional Documents
Summary
The High Court of Karnataka has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, setting aside the orders that rejected their GST refund claims for the periods September 2020 and December 2020. Adopting a "justice-oriented approach," the Court remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to allow the petitioner to submit additional documents that were previously missing.
Summary of Facts and Dispute:
Refund Rejection: The petitioner filed refund claims for September 2020 and December 2020. These were rejected by the 3rd respondent (Assistant/Deputy Commissioner) vide orders dated 02.09.2021 and 26.11.2021.
Appellate Dismissal: The petitioner appealed these rejections, but the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 1) dismissed the appeals on 06.10.2022, primarily because the petitioner failed to furnish necessary supporting documents.
Constitutional Challenge: In the writ petition, the petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act (which conditions ITC on the supplier actually paying the tax) and Rule 36(4) (which limits ITC for invoices not uploaded by suppliers), seeking to have them read down or quashed.
Petitioner's Request: During the hearing, the petitioner sought a remand, promising to produce all necessary documents if given one more opportunity for reconsideration.
Key Legal Findings & Analysis:
Failure of Documentation: The core reason for the dismissal of the appeals was the lack of evidentiary documentation. Under the GST regime, the burden of proof for refund eligibility—especially for exports or inverted duty structures—lies heavily on the taxpayer to produce invoices, shipping bills, and bank realization certificates.
Justice-Oriented Approach: The Court observed that rather than deciding on the complex constitutional challenges to Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4) at this stage, the immediate grievance of refund denial could be addressed by factual verification.
Remand for Merits: By setting aside the original and appellate orders, the Court has effectively "restarted" the adjudication process to ensure that the petitioner is not deprived of a legitimate refund due to procedural or evidentiary omissions.
Ruling and Directions:
The High Court issued the following mandatory directions:
Orders Quashed: The Order-in-Appeal (Annexure A) and the two original rejection orders (Annexures B and C) are set aside.
Mandatory Appearance: The petitioner is directed to appear before the 3rd respondent on December 5, 2025, at 11:00 AM without further notice.
Warning: Failure to appear will result in the automatic recall of this order and the reinstatement of the refund rejections.
Right to File Evidence: The petitioner is granted liberty to submit fresh replies, pleadings, and all supporting documents.
Reasoned Order: The respondent must consider all newly submitted evidence, provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing, and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
“a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari 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 of the provisions set aside and quash impugned order OIA No.189-190/2022-23/JC-AII/GST dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure A);
b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari 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 of the provisions set aside and quash impugned ex-parte Order No. 30N-CT/2020-21 dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure B) and impugned ex-parte Order No. 42/2021-22 dated 26.11.2021 (Annexure C);
c) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari 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 of the provisions hold that section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 is violative and unconstitutional of Article 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;
d) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari 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 of the provisions to read down the provisions of section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 in a manner that the same would not be applicable in the facts of the present case;
e) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari 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 of the provisions set aside and quash impugned Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 as being violative of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and Article 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;
f) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari 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 of the provisions hold that the petitioner is eligible for refund along with interest;
g) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ordering and directing the Respondent to No. 2 to sanction the entire claim for refund with interest to the Petitioner;
h) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari 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 of the provisions set aside and quash impugned Order NO.30N-CT/2020-21dated 02/09/2021 (Annexure-B) & impugned order No.42/2021-22 dated 26.11.2021 (Annexure-C), as being violative of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder;
i) for interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (a) to (h) above;
j) for costs of this Petition;
k) for such and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned CGC for respondent No.1, learned AGA for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner having filed a refund claim on 13.07.2021 for the period September 2020, show cause notice dated 13.07.2021 was issued by 3rd respondent proposing to reject the refund claim of the petitioner, who filed a detailed reply dated 26.07.2021 to the show cause notice refuting the allegations made in the show cause notice. By impugned order dated 02.09.2021, the said refund claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 3. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that similar refund claims for the period December 2020 was also rejected by the respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid refund rejection orders, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority, which dismissed both the appeals for both the tax periods, September 2020 and December 2020 on the ground that necessary documents had not been furnished by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the impugned order is set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent No.3, the impugned orders at Annexures-A, B and C are set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent No.3 for reconsideration, petitioner would produce additional documents which may be directed to be considered.
5. The aforesaid submission is placed on record.
6. In view of submission that documents not produced, by adopting a justice oriented approach, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside Annexures-A, B and C and remit the matter back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing one more opportunity to the petitioner in this regard.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order at Annexures-A, B and C dated 06.10.2022, 02.09.2021 and 26.11.2021 respectively passed by respondent No.3 are hereby set aside.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.3 on 05.12.2025 without awaiting further notice from the respondent, failing which the present order shall stand recalled automatically, without further reference to the Bench and without further orders.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, responses, pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by the respondent, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, hear him and proceed further, in accordance with law.