70-WP-603-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 603 OF 2025 PCK Cotton Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. .....Respondents ..... Mr. Bharat Raichandani i/b Alaksha Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr. Ram Ochani a/w Ms. Megha Bajoria and Ms. Khushi P. Agarwal, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G. P., for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5-State. ..… CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 31st AUGUST 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Learned Addl.G.P. vehemently opposed the Petition submitting that there is no provision for filing an application for refund as such a course is clearly barred by the stand taken by the Petitioner himself vide a communication dated 29th August, 2018 at page no.39. It is the submission of learned Addl.G.P. that the Petitioner himself has withdrawn the refund applications filed for December, 2017 to February 2018 and requested for issuance of an Order for re- crediting of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of refund application. Manisha 1/4 MANISHA BALKRISHNA TALEKAR Digitally signed by MANISHA BALKRISHNA TALEKAR Date: 2026.09.02 15:04:18 +0530 70-WP-603-2025.doc It is submitted that once such a stand has been taken by the Petitioner, it is then not open for the Petitioner to file the refund application for the very said period. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the application made by the Petitioner for withdrawal of the refund applications was not unconditional but the Petitioner wanted to file consolidated refund application for a period of three months i.e. December, 2017 to February, 2018. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [(2021) SCC OnLine Bom 10539] in support of his contentions so far as Rule 97A for manual filing and process of the application is concerned. 4. Learned Addl.G.P. vehemently submitted that the Petitioner has initially made an online application for grant of refund on 18th July, 2018, 26th July, 2018 and 1st August, 2018 for the monthly periods December, 2017, January, 2018 and February, 2018 respectively towards accumulated ITC on inward supplies used for export of goods. Thereafter, the Petitioner by letter dated 29th August, 2018 withdrew all the refund applications for the reasons best known to it Manisha 2/4 70-WP-603-2025.doc and requested to re-credit the ITC to credit ledger. Accordingly, the Nodal Officer issued Form RFD-06 for withdrawal of refund applications on the system. Therefore, there is no question of regenerating the earlier ARNs as the ITC refunded is already re- credited to the Petitioner’s ECL on 7th December, 2018 for the periods December, 2017 to February, 2018 respectively. 5. It is submitted by learned Addl.G.P. that the present Petition is filed after a period of more than six and a half years from the impugned period i.e. FY-2017-2018. As regards the delay, the Petitioner is trying to take the shelter of filing of Appeal as he was pursuing the wrong remedy, however, the Appeal was filed in August, 2022 against the adjudication Order dated 10th May, 2022. Therefore, under the pretext of pursing the wrong remedy, the Petitioner cannot try to revive its stale claim of the period FY-2017-2018 after the period of more than six and a half years. 6. The Petitioner contends that he wants to file a consolidated application and the previous withdrawal was not unconditional. Considering that there is no facility for filing the consolidated application for refund online, the Petitioner is permitted to file such Manisha 3/4 70-WP-603-2025.doc an application manually within a period of two weeks which shall be considered by the Respondents on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter, after hearing the application. It is made clear that, even the aspect of delay in preferring the application and its consequences may be appropriately dealt with by the Respondents. We make no observations on either the maintainability of the application or on delay in filing the application. 7. In view of above and keeping all contentions of the parties open, Writ Petition No.603 of 2025 stands disposed of (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Manisha 4/4