HC Quashes GST Demand on Identical Facts After Refund Approval

Case Details: Corning Technologies India (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax [2026] 186 taxmann.com 892 (Punjab & Haryana)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Deepak Sibal & Ms Lapita Banerji, JJ.
• Deepak Thakur, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Ms Pridhi Sandhu, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a company engaged in export activities, challenged an assessment order. It was contended that on identical facts the petitioner had earlier been treated as an exporter and refunds were sanctioned for the period, which had attained finality. It was further submitted that for subsequent periods, the appellate authority had allowed the appeals and the said orders were duly complied with by the Department. The petitioner submitted that there was no change in facts or law for the remaining periods, yet a fresh tax demand was raised without justification, rendering the action discriminatory and arbitrary. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that once the Department had accepted the petitioner’s status as exporter and granted refunds under Section 54 of the CGST Act for certain periods. Appellate relief had also been granted and implemented for other periods, the Revenue could not take a contradictory stand for identical facts without any distinguishing material. It was observed that the impugned demand raised under Section 73 of the CGST Act, was unsustainable in the absence of any difference in facts or legal position across the relevant periods. The Court held that selective taxation on identical factual matrices amounted to discriminatory treatment violative of the principle of consistency in quasi-judicial assessments. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, with consequential reliefs granted to the petitioner.