16 06.8.2026 Ct. No. 10 SB In The High Court At Calcutta Appellate Side Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction WPA 6516 of 2025 Abhishek Jaiswal & Anr. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Refund Processing Officer, Howrah Charge / Circle & Ors. Mr. J. Khan Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta … for the petitioners Ms. Manasi Mukherjee Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee … for the respondent Mr. Bishwambhar Jha Mr. Uttam Basak … for respondent no. 4/UOI 1. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Whether the order dated 22.11.2024 rejecting the application for refund of unutilized excess input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs.19,21,153/- for the period April 2023 to September 2023 on the ground of inverted duty structure is legally sustainable, when the petitioners claim to be the manufacturers. 3. The petitioner challenges the legality, validity and propriety of the rejection order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the respondent no.1. 4. The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing of hand pumps, hand tanks, which are taxable at the rate of 5 % under GST. 5. For the purpose of manufacturing, the petitioners purchased input goods which are taxable at the rate of 8%. Due to its inverted duty structure, excess ITC as accumulated. 6. The petitioners applied for refund of Rs.19,21,153 for the period April 2023-September 2023 under Section 54(3) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. 7. It is submitted that refund of excess ITC has already been granted to the petitioners for prior periods. 8. The respondent/authority rejected the claim on the ground that the petitioners being RTP are not eligible for refund due to inverted duty structure. 9. It is submitted that the petitioners duly replied to the show-cause notices dated 06.09.2024 and 18.09.2024 and also sent all supporting documents through email to the concerned authority. 10. Despite the same, the respondent/authorities failed to consider the reply and documents and arbitrarily rejected the refund application without proper application of mind and without jurisdiction. 11. Such rejection is liable to be set aside. 12. The allegation that documents were not uploaded is baseless, perverse and incorrect as they were submitted. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/authorities vehemently opposed the submissions made by the petitioner. 14. It is submitted that as far the period in question, the petitioners have wrongfully claimed input tax credit as per Annexure B, annexed to the reply filed by the petitioners. 15. It is further submitted that the petitioners have purchased goods at the rate of 5% pertaining to HSN 8413 which are declared as ‘manufactured goods’ in Annexure B uploaded along with reply. 16. This proves that the petitioners, being RTP, are engaged in trading activity and not manufacturing. 17. A registered taxable person engaged in trading is not eligible for refund of unutilized ITC under inverted duty structure. 18. It is further submitted that whether the petitioners have actually paid the suppliers within 180 days as mandated under Section 16(2) (b) of the CGST Act, 2017, has also not been proved. 19. Having heard the parties and upon perusing the materials on record, this court finds that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case warranting interference at this stage. 20. This Court has taken a judicial note of all the grounds taken in the writ petition along with the documents annexed thereto. 21. This court is of the view that the order of rejection dated 22.11.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 is palpably wrong and suffers from legal infirmity, irregularity and is perverse in nature. The said order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 22. In view of the above the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions” a. The order dated 22.11.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. b. The petitioners are directed to submit a comprehensive and detailed reply annexing all relevant documents, including proof of status as ‘manufacturers’ and details of business, including the claim made in prior periods, within a period of 2 weeks from the date before the respondent no.2. c. Respondent no.2 shall consider and dispose of the said reply within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the reply, upon affording all opportunities of hearing to the petitioners and other details, if any, and shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 23. With the above observations and directions WPA 6516 of 2025 is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. 24. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. (Smita Das De, J.)