[2025:RJ-JP:47437-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11549/2023 Swastik Oil Industries, Having its Address AT F-4-8, RIICO Industrial Area, Newai, Tonk, Rajasthan Having GST Registration No.08AAJFS8180J1ZL Through Its Partner Mr. Ajai Kataria ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi 2. GST Council, LIC Building, Jeevan Bharti, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi Through Its Chairman 3. Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi Through Its Chairman 4. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Department, Division-H, Sector 10, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11550/2023 Swastik Udyog, Having Its Address At F-72-73, RIICO Industrial Area, Newai, Tonk, Rajasthan Having GST Registration No. 08AAJFS8181K1ZI Through Its Partner Mr. Amit Kataria ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, New Delhi 2. GST Council, LIC Building, Jeevan Bharti, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi Through Its Chairman 3. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi Through Its Chairman 4. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Department, Division-H, Sector 10, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur [2025:RJ-JP:47437-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-11549/2023] ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17076/2023 M/s Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt. Ltd., G 502, M/s Shree Siddhi Vinayak Cold Storage Road No 9A Vishwakarma Industrial Area Jaipur Through Its Authorized Signatory Ajay Lakhotia S/o Rajesh Kumar Lakhotia. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Finance Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariate, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Commissioner, State Goods And Services Tax, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 4. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-A, Zone-IV, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8727/2024 Vijay Solvex Limited, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayanand Marg, Alwar Through Its Managing Director Mr. Vijay Data ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, New Delhi 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary (Finance), Secretariat, Jaipur 3. GST Council, LIC Building, Jeevan Bharti, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi Through Its Chairman 4. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi Through Its Chairman 5. Principal Commissioner, Central Excise And CGST Department, Surya Nagar, A Block, Alwar 6. Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise And CGST Department, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:47437-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-11549/2023] ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9658/2024 M/s MO Industries, Jagner Road, Roopwas, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, 321404 Through Its Partner Mr. Hemendra Kumar Goyal, S/o Omprakash, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 502, Telipada, Rupbas, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, 321404. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, New Delhi 2. GST Council, LIC Building, Jeevan Bharti, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi Through Its Chairman 3. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi Through Its Chairman 4. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise And CGST, NCRB, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005. 5. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division-F, In-Front Of Ghana Gate, Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur-321001. 6. The Superintendent, Central Goods And Services Tax, Range-26, In Front Of Ghana Gate, Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj)-321001. 7. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Kar Bhawan, Jaipur-302004. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Pranav Malik Ms. Satvika Jha Mr. Rohan Chatter Mr. Mayank Vyas for Mr. Pankaj Ghiya Mr. Ravi Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC assisted by Mr. Jay Upadhyay Mr. Parth Khandal Mr. Ajay Shukla with Mr. Raghav Sharma Ms. Jyoti Sharma [2025:RJ-JP:47437-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-11549/2023] Mr. Aaditya Godara, Assistant Additional Advocate General Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Arnav Singh and Mr. Utkarsh Meena HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 24/11/2025 1. The issue raised in the present writ petitions is no more res integra. 2. The question raised before us in the petitions is whether the FAQ Annexure-7 issued on 10.11.2022 relating to denial of refund applications filed prior to 18.07.2022 with respect to refund of his claim for the ITC, has been denied by the Rajasthan High Court in case of Shree Arihant Oil and General Mills Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 (9) TMI 968 dated 08.09.2025 wherein the Court observed that: "18. Input Tax Credit is an indefeasible right of an assessee, which accrues to it on the date when the goods were bought. A gainful reference of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune & Ors. vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1999 (112) ELT 353(S.C.) : (1999) 7 SCC 448 can be made. Said goods have been placed in the negative list with effect from 18.07.2022. As such, the right which has accrued to the petitioner up to the date, when the notification came into force cannot be denied. The respondents’ stand and the clarification reproduced in Para No. 14 above [2025:RJ-JP:47437-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-11549/2023] impinges upon petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India. 19. Somewhat similar view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Patanjali Foods Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. : R/Special Civil Application No. 17298/2024 decided on 12.02.2025 so also by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the cases of Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner ST & Ors. and Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and Ors. reported in (2025) 143 GSTR 636 : 2025 SCC OnLine AP 1435. It may be noted that Special Leave Petition thereagainst has been rejected by Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 09.05.2025 reported in (2025) 143 GSTR 644 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1580. 20. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed." 3. We notice that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already taken into consideration the earlier judgments passed by other High Courts. Learned counsel has also relied on the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes Vs. Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. and Anr., 2025 (5) TMI 998 dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the claim of the Department and dismissed the SLP in Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes 2025 (2) TMI 302 dated 29.01.2025 as under: [2025:RJ-JP:47437-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-11549/2023] "17. In view of the specific stipulation that the Notification comes into effect only from 18.07.2022, it would clearly mean that input tax credit which accumulates in the tax credit ledger of the registered person, on account of the mismatch between the input tax and the output tax, before 18.07.2022, can be recovered by the registered person, by way of an application under Section 54 of the CGST Act. This would not mean that, an application cannot be made after 18.07.2022. Restriction would apply only to the extent of input tax credit arising after 18.07.2022. 18. In the impugned circular, while clarifying that the notification is prospective, the Government went on to state that applications cannot be made after 18.07.2022. This Court finds that the said clarification is neither logical nor in accordance with the understanding of law in such cases. 19. This Court would hold that once a stipulation is made that the notification, in question, operates from 18.07.2022, it would mean that any input tax credit which arose on account of the mismatch between the input tax and the output tax, prior to 18.07.2022, can always be recovered by the registered person, by making an application under Section 54 of the CGST Act. 20. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that Circular No.181/13/2022-GST, dated 10.11.2022, would have to be struck down, to the extent of the clarification that the restriction imposed by the Notification, dated 13.07.2022, would be applicable in respect of all refund applications filed on or after 18.07.2022. [2025:RJ-JP:47437-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-11549/2023] 21. Consequent to this, the impugned orders of rejection of refund, mentioned above, are set aside and the said respondents are required to reconsider the said applications, in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act and without relying upon the clarification issued in Circular No.181/13/22-GST, dated 10.11.2022, for non- suiting the petitioners herein." 4. Similar views have been taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Patanjali Foods Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 (3) TMI 367 dated 12.02.2025 and the Allahabad High Court in the case of Vaibhav Edibles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2025 (11) TMI 1265 dated 13.11.2025. 5. We, therefore, need not further contest the said aspect. It suffices to state that the unutilised ITC in cases related to the inverted duty structure applied only after 18.07.2022 as laid down in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 5 SCC 536 by the Constitutional Bench. 6. The benefit which has been passed on working customers can only be after 18.07.2022 and, therefore, the view taken by the Co-ordinate Benches as well as by this Court is affirmed. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are allowed. 8. Any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ SOURAV /68-72