Writ petitions for SEZ IGST refunds will not be entertained when an efficacious statutory appeal remedy exists.

By | June 25, 2026
0 Comment

Writ petitions for SEZ IGST refunds will not be entertained when an efficacious statutory appeal remedy exists.

Issue

Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit can bypass the alternative, efficacious statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act and directly invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge an IGST refund rejection order.

Facts

  • The petitioner is an established Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit.

  • During the tax period spanning November 2023 to December 2023, the petitioner availed group health insurance services.

  • The petitioner subsequently filed an application seeking a refund of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on these services.

  • The Refund Sanctioning Officer evaluated the application and issued a formal refund rejection order dated December 8, 2025.

  • Rather than filing a statutory appeal, the petitioner approached the High Court under writ jurisdiction, asserting a clear entitlement to the refund under Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act.

  • The State opposed the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the taxpayer must utilize the structured, alternate statutory appeal route available under the law.

Decision

  • The writ petition is dismissed in favor of the Revenue without any order as to costs.

  • High Courts will not entertain a writ petition when complex questions—such as whether an SEZ refund qualifies as a zero-rated supply or a simpliciter refund—are better suited for a statutory appellate authority.

  • The petitioner is granted explicit liberty to approach the competent appellate authority by filing a formal statutory appeal to raise all their legal grounds.

  • If the petitioner files this appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, the appellate authority is directed to consider condoning the limitation delay caused by the time spent pursuing the writ petition.

Key Takeaways

  • Writ Jurisdiction is Not a Shortcut: Taxpayers cannot bypass the regular appellate hierarchy established under the GST law simply to fast-track a dispute. Unless there is a gross violation of natural justice or a patent lack of jurisdiction, the High Court will mandate using the standard appeal route.

  • Protection Against Limitation Expiry: When a court redirects a taxpayer from a writ to a statutory appeal, it routinely protects the assessee’s interests by directing the appellate authority to exclude the time spent during the mistaken writ proceedings from the limitation clock.

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd.
v.
Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes
Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ.
and G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J.
WRIT PETITION No. 16589 of 2026
JUNE  9, 2026
Raghavan Ramabadran and Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan, Ld. Counsels for the Petitioner. Swaroop Oorilla, Ld. Spl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel representing Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for State Tax.
2. The writ petition has been preferred assailing the refund rejection order dated 08.12.2025 rejecting petitioner’s claim for refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amount of Rs. 13,09,78,306/- on Group Health Insurance Services availed by Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Unit. Out of the number of grounds taken by the petitioner one of them is that the Refund Sanctioning Officer erroneously denied the refund to the petitioner SEZ Unit despite Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for getting refund where the tax incidence has been borne by the recipient. The Refund Sanctioning Authority has confused the claim of refund as being under zero-rated supplies falling within the SEZ. Whereas, the petitioner’s claim is purely a refund against supplies made. The authority has wrongly treated Group Health Insurance Services as personal consumption overlooking that such services are covered under the approved default list of SEZ services and were procured for employees welfare essential to IT/ITeS operations and also fall within the authorised operations of the SEZ Unit. The officer has introduced new grounds which were never raised in the show cause notice denying petitioner an opportunity to respond. Therefore, petitioner has preferred this writ petition taking inter alia a number of grounds. The claim relates to the period November, 2023 to December, 2023. The application for endorsement of the SEZ GST Officer has been kept pending which is another handicap for the petitioner to establish its claim before the Refund Sanctioning Authority. Therefore, this Court may entertain this writ petition.
3. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax has at the outset taken the plea of alternative remedy of appeal. He submits that all these grounds are available to be raised before the appellate authority. The grounds urged by the petitioner are in relation to the merits of the claim whether it falls under supplies made to the insurance authorities or were to be treated as zero-rated supplies in respect of a unit falling in the SEZ zone. The appellate authority would be in a better position to examine the rival claims.
4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant materials referred to and placed on record.
5. In the facts and circumstances noted above, whether the claim for refund made by the petitioner, which is a SEZ Unit, is outside the scope of zero-rated supply and is a simplicitor claim of refund against supplies made to the insurance company are matters which can be properly raised and decided by the appellate authority on merits. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal taking all such grounds of law and fact as are available to it. Needless to say, if an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay, if any, taking into account that the petitioner was pursuing its remedy before this Court in writ jurisdiction against the refund rejection order dated 08.12.2025.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.