This compilation indexes twelve High Court orders from January 2026 to May 2026 in which Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act / Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act / Integrated Goods and Services Tax framework was cited as a central provision. The cases span writ petitions and other proceedings filed before the Delhi, Bombay, Karnataka, Gujarat, and Madras High Courts by a range of taxpayers — service providers, exporters, LLPs, and proprietory concerns — challenging refund orders, refund rejections, or related tax authority actions. This index is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who require a structured, citation-ready survey of recent judicial activity on GST refund litigation.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference tool. It does not constitute legal or tax advice. Readers must independently verify all rulings against full-text judgments and check for subsequent stays, appeals, or reversals before relying on any entry.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and its state counterparts such as the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) provides the mechanism for claiming refunds of tax, interest, penalty, fees, or any other amount paid by a registered person. It prescribes the time limit within which a refund application must be filed (ordinarily two years from the relevant date), the procedure for processing such applications, the conditions under which refund may be withheld or adjusted, and the categories of persons and transactions entitled to claim refund — including exporters of goods or services, suppliers of zero-rated supplies, and cases of excess payment owing to mistake or inadvertence. The provision also sets out the framework for provisional refund sanction and the requirement of a pre-audit process in specified circumstances.

The 12 rulings

1. Fateh Education Consulting Private vs Assistant Commissioner, Cgst

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 8 May 2026
Sections engaged: 54, 2(13)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited, described as engaged in providing education consultancy, marketing, and recruitment support services to foreign universities, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Delhi High Court as W.P.(C) 17500/2025. The petition was directed against the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur, and the Commissioner, Division Wazirpur, Central Tax Delhi West Commissionerate; the full merits and final disposal are not detailed in the source preview.

2. 52 Realtors vs Rumi Keki Palia

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 7 May 2026
Sections engaged: 54, 55
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter came before the Bombay High Court as Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 16572 of 2026, with disputes and differences between the parties arising out of an agreed monetary arrangement per the source preview. The petition was dismissed per the dispositive portion of the source preview ("The Petition is accordingly dismissed"), with an ancillary prayer relating to pending arbitration proceedings and enforcement of an award also noted; the full substantive grounds are not detailed in the available preview text.

3. Apollo India Services Llp vs State Of Maharashtra

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 29 April 2026
Sections engaged: 54, 16
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three writ petitions — W.P. No. 5268 of 2024, W.P. No. 467 of 2026, and W.P. No. 4423 of 2025 — were filed by Apollo India Services LLP against the State of Maharashtra before the Bombay High Court, involving common issues of law and facts (except for the dates of the impugned orders and amounts of refund), and were disposed of by a common order with W.P. No. 5268 of 2024 as the lead petition per the source preview. The source preview confirms that the petitions involved refund amounts and that the court found the matters capable of being conveniently disposed of together; the specific findings on the merits are not available in the preview.

4. Mahanadi Exporttek Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 28 April 2026
Sections engaged: 54
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition was filed as W.P.(C) 19358/2025 before the Delhi High Court, reserved on 13 April 2026 and pronounced on 28 April 2026, challenging action by the Commissioner of CGST (East) Delhi and the Assistant Commissioner of CGST Division, Nehru Place, among others, with the Union of India as the first respondent per the source preview. The substantive merits and final order are not detailed in the available source preview.

5. Zoetis Pharmaceauticals Research vs State Of Maharashtra

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 22 April 2026
Sections engaged: 54, 2(6)(v)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, Zoetis Pharmaceutical Research Pvt. Ltd., filed Writ Petition No. 2424 of 2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash an impugned order issued under Section 54 of the MGST Act by Respondent No. 2 (the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax) for the period October 2022 to March 2023. The prayer, as set out in the source preview, specifically sought to challenge the validity and legality of that order; the final outcome and merits are not captured in the available preview.

6. Infinx Services Private Limited vs The Union Of India Thr The Secretary And

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 16 April 2026
Sections engaged: 54
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Infinx Services Private Limited filed Writ Petition No. 11996 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, seeking a writ of certiorari to call for records pertaining to the petitioner's case and, after examining their validity and legality, to quash and set aside the impugned order, per the source preview. The respondents include the Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai Zone, and the Deputy Commissioner of CGST, Division-IV, Belapur; the final disposal and substantive findings are not available in the source preview.

7. K Line India Private Limited vs Union Of India

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 15 April 2026
Sections engaged: 107(1), 54
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: K Line India Pvt. Ltd. filed a batch of seven writ petitions — including W.P. (L) No. 36200 of 2023 as the lead matter — before the Bombay High Court, all involving common questions of law and fact and disposed of by a common oral judgment per the source preview. The source preview notes that the issue falling for the court's consideration arose from the said lead petition, with the other petitions being adjudicated on the same basis; the specific issue and final outcome are not detailed in the available preview text.

8. Charan Singh Surjit Singh Gujral vs Union Of India And Ors

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 15 April 2026
Sections engaged: 54, 110, 113(i)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, Shri Charan Singh Surjit Singh Gujral, carrying on business of trading and export of parts and accessories of motor vehicles and mobile accessories under the proprietary concern Guru Nanak Motor House, filed Writ Petition No. 1330 of 2025 under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court, heard finally by consent of the parties per the source preview. The petitioner's case, as described in the source preview, related to exports made between 21 December 2018 to 14 January 2019 covering 30 separate shipping bills, with a contention that IGST had been paid and discharged at the time of procurement of the exported goods; the final order on the merits is not available in the source preview.

9. M/S Aviation Management Sales Llc vs The Union Of India

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 11 March 2026
Sections engaged: 54, 14
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: M/S Aviation Management Sales LLC, a limited liability company organised under the laws of the State of Florida, USA, filed W.P. No. 22257 of 2022 (T-RES) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, with respondents including the Union of India, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Mysuru, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, West Division-2, GST West Commissionerate, Bengaluru, and the Official Liquidator, per the source preview. The substantive grounds and final outcome are not captured in the available source preview beyond the identification of parties and the court.

10. Ghanshyambhai Kashibhai Chavda vs Nilam Satish Mishra

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 24 February 2026
Sections engaged: 17, 54, 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Ghanshyambhai Kashibhai Chavda filed R/First Appeal No. 3497 of 2025 before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kheda in Civil Suit No. 34 of 2024, whereby the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for cancellation of a registered sale deed was dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11, per the source preview. The source preview further notes that the appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant, with the plaintiff's case concerning an agreement to sale; the substantive merits and final outcome of the first appeal are not detailed in the available source preview.

11. Sajnit Singh Ahluwalia vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 13 February 2026
Sections engaged: 54
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Sajnit Singh Ahluwalia, Proprietor of M/s Jeet Granite, Krishnagiri, filed W.P. Nos. 5565 and 5569 of 2026 and W.P. No. 18586 of 2025 before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the source preview, W.P. No. 5565 of 2026 prayed for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the impugned order dated 26.08.2022 in GSTIN: 33AEYPA0451MIZE/2017-18 along with DRC-07 dated 26.08.2022 bearing Ref. No. ZD330822019395G passed by the first respondent, and the consequent Recovery Notice dated 23.12.2025 issued by the second respondent; the final merits and disposal are not available in the source preview.

12. M/S Jubilee Engineers vs Deputy Commissioner

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 27 January 2026
Sections engaged: 2(102), 54, 65B(44), 7(1)(a), 74
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: M/S Jubilee Engineers filed R/Special Civil Application No. 14168 of 2024 before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad; the source preview states that the controversy arising in the petition was in a narrow compass and the matter was taken up for hearing with the consent of the advocates for both parties, with rule made returnable forthwith. The substantive issue and final oral judgment findings are not detailed in the available source preview beyond the identification of the hearing posture and parties.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Writ petitions as the primary remedy. Across the majority of cases, the taxpayer's chosen remedy was a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed directly before a High Court — Delhi, Bombay, Karnataka, Gujarat, or Madras — indicating that litigants in GST refund disputes are frequently seeking judicial review at the High Court level rather than exhausting purely statutory appellate routes.
Batch disposal of related matters. Several cases in this set (cases 3 and 7) involved the High Court disposing of multiple writ petitions filed by the same petitioner by a single common order, on the ground that common questions of law and fact were involved. This pattern reflects that taxpayers with systemic or recurring refund issues across multiple periods tend to consolidate their grievances before the court.
Broad range of petitioner profiles. The cases cover a diverse range of entities — a US-registered LLC (case 9), a service exporter (case 1), an LLP (case 3), a goods exporter (case 8), and proprietory concerns (case 11) — suggesting that GST refund litigation is not confined to any single sector or type of registered person.
Multi-section petitions. A number of petitions engage companion provisions alongside the refund provision — including provisions relating to supply definitions, appeals, and demand proceedings, per the respective sections lists — indicating that refund disputes before High Courts frequently involve interlinked questions of eligibility, classification, and procedural validity rather than the refund provision in isolation.
Outcome data limitation. None of the twelve source entries carry a fully extracted outcome in the structured data. Researchers should treat this compilation as a docket-identification and procedural survey index and must retrieve and review full-text judgments to ascertain final holdings, reliefs granted, and any directions issued by the respective courts.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is designed as a starting point for legal and tax research, not a substitute for primary source review. Each entry identifies the court, bench, date, relevant sections, and procedural context to the extent available in the source preview. Before citing any ruling in advice, pleadings, or compliance documents, researchers must obtain the full text of the judgment from the official court portal or a recognised legal database, verify that the order has not been stayed, set aside, or appealed to a higher forum, and confirm that the facts and legal propositions extracted in the preview accurately reflect the complete judgment.

Researchers should also check whether the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued any circular, instruction, or clarification on the specific refund issue engaged in a given ruling. CBIC instructions can alter the practical effect of a High Court direction where the department has aligned its administrative practice with or departed from the judicial holding. Similarly, for matters involving the IGST Act or state GST legislation, parallel state government notifications or amendments may be relevant and are not captured in this index.

When tracking refund litigation across periods, it is advisable to check whether subsequent assessment years or return periods for the same taxpayer have generated further proceedings that may expand, limit, or otherwise qualify the holding recorded here. The TaxNoticeAI corpus is updated as new judgments are indexed; users are encouraged to re-run searches periodically to capture subsequent developments in the same party-line or on the same legal question.

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.

GST Section 54 Refund Claims: 12 High Court Rulings (2026)