Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s IBS Software Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at Prestige Shantiniketan, Whitefield, Bengaluru, represented by its Chief Operating Officer, Ashish Nanda, challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated 17.01.2024 (No. 27/2024/ADC-A1/GST) passed by the Additional Commissioner of GST Appeals-I under Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017, which had rejected the appeal arising from denial of its refund claim by the Deputy Commissioner, GST Commissionerate Bengaluru East. The petitioner sought a declaration of eligibility for a refund of Rs. 2,98,50,776/- relating to export of services, contending that amounts received in its bank accounts constituted receipt of consideration in convertible foreign currency for zero-rated supply, that two e-BRCs received during the relevant period ought to be considered for determining zero-rated supply even though the underlying consideration was received in an earlier period, and that it was entitled to interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act on the delayed refund. Before the writ petition could be finally heard on merits, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application seeking leave to withdraw the petition altogether, in order instead to avail the appellate remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act before the GST Appellate Tribunal, which had by then been newly constituted.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner should be granted leave to withdraw the writ petition challenging the Order-in-Appeal in order to pursue the statutory remedy of a Tribunal appeal under Section 112.
  2. Whether the underlying refund questions - treatment of e-BRCs, foreign currency receipt, and interest under Section 56 - required any adjudication by the High Court at this stage.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • With the GST Appellate Tribunal now constituted, the more appropriate remedy against the Order-in-Appeal is a statutory appeal under Section 112 rather than continuing to press the writ petition.
  • Leave to withdraw the writ petition should be granted so that the refund dispute can be pursued before the Tribunal.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No independent opposition to the withdrawal application is recorded; the respondents' counsel appeared for the Additional Commissioner of GST Appeals-I and the Deputy Commissioner, but the order records no contest to the prayer for withdrawal with liberty to approach the Tribunal.
  • Since the withdrawal did not concede or contest the underlying refund entitlement, the respondents were content to have the matter proceed via the statutory Tribunal route rather than continue in writ jurisdiction.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court accepted the withdrawal application and disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy under Section 112 before the newly constituted Tribunal.
  • No view was expressed on the merits of the refund claim, the treatment of the e-BRCs as evidence of zero-rated supply, or entitlement to interest under Section 56.
  • The connected interlocutory application seeking leave to withdraw was also disposed of, bringing the writ proceedings to a close entirely on the petitioner's own request.

Important Clarification

With the GST Appellate Tribunal now operational, High Courts are inclined to relegate pending refund and export-related disputes, earlier kept in writ jurisdiction only for want of a functioning Tribunal, back to the statutory Section 112 appellate route, allowing withdrawal of the writ petition without prejudice to the merits of the refund claim.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 - appeal to the Appellate Authority, under which the impugned order was passed.
  • Section 112, CGST Act, 2017 - appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
  • Section 54, CGST Act, 2017 - refund of tax, including refunds on zero-rated export of services.
  • Section 56, CGST Act, 2017 - interest on delayed refunds.

Decision – In Favour of

This is a thin, procedural disposal with no finding on merits. The refund question - whether the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 2,98,50,776/- and interest under Section 56 - remains entirely open and is left for the GST Appellate Tribunal to decide under Section 112; neither party can be said to have prevailed on the substance of the dispute.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
  • Case No.: WP No. 11136 of 2024 (T-RES)
  • CNR: KAHC010211692024
  • Coram: Justice B M Shyam Prasad
  • Decision Date: 17 July 2026
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of with liberty to avail Section 112 Tribunal remedy

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.