GST Section 54(3) ITC Refund: 12 High Court Rulings (2025–2026)

This compilation indexes twelve High Court rulings decided between February 2025 and July 2026 in which taxpayers invoked Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, seeking refund of unutilised input tax credit. The cases arise from a range of factual contexts — inverted duty structures, export of goods and services, discontinuance of business, and disputed eligibility determinations — and span the Gujarat, Bombay, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madras, and Sikkim High Courts. This index is intended for in-house GST teams, Big-4 indirect-tax associates, and law-firm researchers who need a quick-reference survey of recent judicial activity around refund entitlement under Section 54(3).

Research index only. This page summarises publicly available court orders for reference purposes. Nothing on this page constitutes legal or tax advice. Always verify the full text of each judgment and consult qualified counsel before acting on any information here.

---

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 entitles a registered person to claim a refund of any unutilised input tax credit at the end of a tax period. The provision permits such refund in two specified situations: (i) where credit has accumulated on account of the rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies — commonly referred to as an inverted duty structure — and (ii) where the credit relates to zero-rated supplies made without payment of integrated tax. The provision is subject to conditions, exceptions, and the formula prescribed under the rules, and its interaction with related provisions governing eligibility of input tax credit and the definitions of "zero-rated supply" and "export of services" has generated substantial litigation, a cross-section of which is indexed below.

---

The 12 rulings

1. Pranav Overseas Llp vs Union Of India

• Bench: Gujarat High Court
• Date: 2 July 2026
• Sections engaged: 2(62), 54(1), 54(3)
• Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
• Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (R/Special Civil Application No. 12861 of 2020) was filed before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad seeking reliefs in connection with provisions of the CGST framework. At the time the matter was called out, the petitioner's counsel pointed to a subsequent development in law relating to Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, noting that the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 603 had set aside an earlier Gujarat High Court judgment and issued directions, following which the GST authorities had taken steps pursuant to those directions. The text preview does not disclose the final dispositive order passed in this matter.

---

2. Dilip Babubhai Patel, Proprietor Of M/S vs State Of Gujarat

• Bench: Gujarat High Court
• Date: 29 June 2026
• Sections engaged: 140, 54(3)
• Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
• Procedural / substantive ground: In this writ petition (R/Special Civil Application No. 21685 of 2019), the petitioner — proprietor of M/s Shree Umiya Timbers — sought a direction to the respondents to grant refund of Rs. 18,74,676/- along with applicable interest, and also for re-crediting input tax credit of Rs. 18,74,676/- to the Electronic Credit Ledger. The petitioner's case, as appearing in the source preview, was that as on 30 June 2017 it had accumulated excess ITC amounting to Rs. 23,74,689/- as reflected in its return filed in Form-201. The CAV judgment was reserved on 16 June 2026 and pronounced on 29 June 2026; the full dispositive direction is not captured in the available text preview.

---

3. Sns Minerals Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner

• Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
• Date: 5 May 2026
• Sections engaged: 54(3), 73
• Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
• Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, a company registered under GST laws, challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 17 February 2023 by which a refund earlier granted to it had been set aside. Per the source preview, during the period April 2018 to December 2018 the petitioner had paid GST at 18% on royalty under the reverse charge mechanism while its output supply was taxable at 5%, resulting in accumulation of excess input tax; the petitioner thereafter filed refund claims amounting to ₹84,26,536/- under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act and a Show Cause Notice dated 06 January 2020 was issued. The matter was reserved on 22 April 2026 and pronounced on 5 May 2026; the full operative order is not available in the text preview.

---

4. Arawali Engineers vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:17161-Db)

• Bench: Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
• Date: 13 April 2026
• Sections engaged: 54(3)
• Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
• Procedural / substantive ground: This D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10937/2021 was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The source preview sets out a detailed tabular calculation of inverted duty refund workings across multiple quarters from April 2019 to March 2020, showing figures for total turnover, inverted-duty turnover, ITC on inputs, net ITC, and refund due and denied for each quarter. The filing was directed against the Union of India, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, and the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Jodhpur; the final operative direction of the court is not disclosed in the available text preview.

---

5. Vistex Asia Pacific Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India And 5 Ors

• Bench: Bombay High Court
• Date: 6 January 2026
• Sections engaged: 54(3)
• Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
• Procedural / substantive ground: This Writ Petition No. 4852 of 2022 was heard finally by the Bombay High Court at its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, assailing an order dated 22 February 2022 passed in appeal by the Joint Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai. The petitioner is described in the source preview as a subsidiary of M/s Vistex Inc., USA, primarily engaged in the export of Information Technology services and providing services to its parent company under a Service Agreement dated 01 January 2017; its claim for refund arose in that context. The rule was made returnable forthwith and the matter was heard finally with the consent of parties, but the operative direction is not captured in the available text preview.

---

6. Homag India Private Limited vs The Joint Commissioner

• Bench: Karnataka High Court
• Date: 12 December 2025
• Sections engaged: 54(3)
• Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
• Procedural / substantive ground: Writ Petition No. 27378 of 2025 (T-RES) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature thereof quashing the Order-in-Appeal dated 06 May 2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Appeals-II, bearing OIA No. 15-16/25-26. The appeal was directed against two respondents: the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II) and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Division NWD-3, Bangalore North-West Commissionerate. The full operative order and its reasoning are not disclosed in the available text preview.

---

7. M/S Jeans Knit (P) Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Tax

• Bench: Karnataka High Court
• Date: 11 November 2025
• Sections engaged: 54(3), 16(3)(b)
• Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
• Procedural / substantive ground: Two connected writ petitions — WP No. 8128 of 2020 and WP No. 16372 of 2022 — were heard together before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru. The petitioner, M/s Jeans Knit (P) Ltd, is situated at Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru, and the respondents include the Union of India, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, and tax authorities of the Bengaluru North West Commissionerate. The source preview does not disclose the substantive ground on which the refund was disputed or the operative relief granted; the appeal was filed against orders of the tax authorities and the matter was adjudicated as indicated by the November 2025 date.

---

8. Eit Services India Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner

• Bench: Madras High Court
• Date: 6 October 2025
• Sections engaged: 54(3), 16
• Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
• Procedural / substantive ground: W.P. No. 36856 of 2025 was filed before the Madras High Court as a writ of mandamus directing the respondent — the Assistant Commissioner, Guindy Division, Chennai — to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02 January 2024 (acknowledged on 04 February 2025) requesting disbursal of a refund amount already sanctioned. Per the source preview, the petitioner's specific case was that it had exported goods/services abroad and was therefore entitled to refund; the claim had been sanctioned but not disbursed. The full operative direction of the court is not available in the text preview.

---

9. S.N. Tradelink Pvt Ltd vs State Of Gujarat

• Bench: Gujarat High Court
• Date: 26 September 2025
• Sections engaged: 54(3)
• Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
• Procedural / substantive ground: R/Special Civil Application No. 10928 of 2025 was filed before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad and was taken up for hearing with the consent of advocates for both parties, as the controversy involved was described in the source preview as being "in a narrow compass." The matter was decided as an oral judgment on 26 September 2025 by a division bench; the Assistant Government Pleader waived service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. The full operative direction and the specific ground of the refund dispute are not disclosed in the available text preview.

---

10. Sundyne Pumps And Compressors India vs Union Of India And Ors

• Bench: Bombay High Court
• Date: 16 June 2025
• Sections engaged: 54(3), 2(5), 2(6)
• Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
• Procedural / substantive ground: Writ Petition No. 15228 of 2023 was filed before the Bombay High Court under Article 226, seeking to challenge two orders (the operative challenge being described as such in the source preview), with the respondents including the Union of India through the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, and state respondents. The petitioner, formerly known as HMD Seal/Less Pumps Industrial Pvt Ltd, was represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Shah; the matter was reserved on 6 May 2025 and pronounced on 16 June 2025. The definitions referenced in sections 2(5) and 2(6) appear to be in issue, and the source preview also references the Supreme Court decision in CCE Cochin vs Tata Tea Ltd, (2002) 9 SCC 17; the full operative direction is not available in the text preview.

---

11. Sicpa India Private Limited And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors

• Bench: Sikkim High Court
• Date: 10 June 2025
• Sections engaged: 49(6), 54(3)
• Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
• Procedural / substantive ground: WP(C) No. 54 of 2023 was filed before the Sikkim High Court at Gangtok under Articles 226 and 227. Per the source preview, the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Gangtok Division, Sikkim, had by order dated 08 February 2022 rejected the petitioners' refund application claiming unutilised ITC lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger amounting to ₹4,37,61,402/- upon discontinuance of business; the Appellate Authority had thereafter also passed an order dated 22 March 2023. The full operative direction of the High Court is not captured in the available text preview.

---

12. Patanjali Foods Ltd vs Union Of India

• Bench: Gujarat High Court
• Date: 12 February 2025
• Sections engaged: 54(3), 73
• Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
• Procedural / substantive ground: R/Special Civil Application No. 17298 of 2024 was filed before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad and was decided as an oral judgment on 12 February 2025 by a division bench. The source preview reproduces tariff entries relating to edible oils (soya-bean oil, ground-nut oil, olive oil, and other oils and fractions) appearing in the GST rate schedule, suggesting the refund dispute may concern the rate of tax applicable to these goods and any resulting inverted duty structure. The full substantive reasoning and operative direction of the court are not disclosed in the available text preview.

---

Patterns across these 12 rulings

1. Writ petitions as the predominant remedy. Every case in this compilation was filed as a writ petition under Article 226 (and, in some cases, Article 227) of the Constitution of India before a High Court, rather than proceeding through the statutory appellate hierarchy alone. This reflects a recurring approach by taxpayers who have exhausted or bypassed lower appellate forums and seek direct constitutional remedies where refund orders are denied or sanctioned amounts are not disbursed.

2. Inverted duty structure as a central factual trigger. At least two cases in this set — SNS Minerals (case 3) and Arawali Engineers (case 4) — explicitly arise from an inverted duty structure, where the rate of GST on inputs exceeded the rate on output supplies, generating accumulated credit. Patanjali Foods (case 12), involving edible oil tariff entries, also appears to engage a similar rate-differential question. This is consistent with Section 54(3)'s primary operational context in practice.

3. Disbursement failure distinct from eligibility denial. EIT Services India (case 8) presents a factually distinct pattern: the refund had already been sanctioned by the authority but not disbursed, and the mandamus was sought purely for disbursal of an admitted amount. This illustrates that litigation under Section 54(3) is not confined to disputes over entitlement — enforcement of sanctioned-but-unpaid refunds generates a separate category of writ petitions.

4. Discontinuance of business as a specific trigger. Sicpa India (case 11) involved a refund claim of unutilised ITC arising upon discontinuance of business, a factual circumstance that engages specific questions about the timing and availability of refund upon cessation of operations. This is a less-commonly litigated sub-category compared to inverted duty or export-based claims.

5. Geographic spread across multiple High Courts. These twelve rulings span seven distinct High Courts — Gujarat, Bombay, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madras, and Sikkim — indicating that Section 54(3) refund disputes are not confined to any single jurisdiction and that divergent approaches, where they exist, may require tracking across multiple circuits. Researchers should check whether any of these matters has been appealed to the Supreme Court or whether a jurisdictional conflict has emerged.

---

How to use this compilation

This index is designed as a starting point for identifying relevant judicial precedent, not as a substitute for reading the full text of each judgment. Before relying on any ruling listed here, researchers should obtain the complete judgment from the official court portal or indiankanoon.org, verify that the order has not been stayed, varied, or reversed by a higher court, and check whether a Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Supreme Court. The CASE_FACTS and text_preview data reproduced here are drawn from structured extracts and may not capture the full operative paragraphs of each order.

Researchers should also cross-reference any ruling with applicable CBIC circulars, notifications, and instructions issued under the CGST Act, since the legal position on refund entitlement — particularly in relation to the formula under Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules and zero-rated supply eligibility — has evolved through both judicial decisions and administrative clarifications. The Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 603, referenced in case 1 of this compilation, is one such development that has materially affected the refund computation landscape and should be checked for its current applicability.

Finally, note that all twelve cases in this compilation record "Outcome not specified in source" — meaning the dispositive tail of each judgment was not fully captured in the structured extract available. This makes it especially important for researchers to read the complete judgment before drawing any conclusion about the actual relief granted or denied.

---

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.