MUKESH INCENSE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS

Judgment text excerpt

Digitally signed by MULEY MULEY SHUBHAM SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO PRAVINRAO Date: 2025.11.06 20:59:08 +0530 10-WP-3238-2022.DOCX Shubham IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3238 OF 2022 Mukesh Incense Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr. Deepak Bapat a/w Sonali Bapat and Krupa Chavan for the Petitioner. Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for State. Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w Harshad Shingnapurkar, Soutrik Kar, Rupesh Dubey and Ashutosh Mishra for Respondent Nos.1 & 3. ______________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED : 03 November 2025 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner, inter alia, challenges orders dated 23 June 2020 rejecting the Petitioner’s refund application under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, and an order dated 18 August 2021 made by the first Appellate Authority rejecting the Appeal against the order dated 23 June 2020. In addition, the Petitioner has sought a declaration that Rule 90(3) of the CGST and NGST Rules is ultra vires Section 54(3) Page 1 of 3 10-WP-3238-2022.DOCX of the CGST and SGST Act, and, based thereon, the impugned orders could not have been made. 4. Mr Bapat, learned counsel for the Petitioner, relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in M/S. Darshan Processors Vs. Union of India & Ors.1 to submit that Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules has been construed to count the limitation period from the date of the original application and not from the date of filing of a subsequent application after cle