Shree Arihant Oil & General Mills v. UOI
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The reported High Court decision concerns a refund restriction introduced through delegated material. It treats the relevant notification prospectively and rejects an inconsistent circular restriction, directing refund processing.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: CGST 54
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- GST refund restriction; prospective notification/circular: The reported High Court decision concerns a refund restriction introduced through delegated material. It treats the relevant notification prospectively and rejects an inconsistent circular restriction, directing refund processing.
Material facts and background
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2932/2023 Shree Arihant Oil and General Mills, E-299, Agro Food Park, Udyog Vihar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) through its Partner Harsh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, Aged About 40 Years. ----Petitioner Versus 1.
Goods and Service Tax Council, through its Secretary, 5th Floor, Tower II, Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001. ----Respondents
challenged the action of the respondents who have not decided its application for refund of the tax paid under State Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SGST’), on raw materials such as Mustard Oil etc, purchased upto 18.07.2022.
2022 was issued providing that accumulated Input Tax Credit shall not be allowed in relation to various items including HSN Entry No. 1514 which was made enforceable from prospective date i.e. 18.07.2022. 4.
inverted duty structure, the petitioner has filed application(s) for refund of the Input Tax Credit as per section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2017’) for the period(s) prior to 18.07.2022. 5.
petitioner submitted that since the notification dated 13 th July, 2022 was brought into effect from 18.07.2022, all the assessees including the petitioner were entitled for claiming refund of Input Tax Credit on the goods purchased upto 18.07.2022 and yet, the respondents have not decided petitioner’s applications for claim of refund, which were filed on 04.01.2023. 6.
application for refund is two years and, hence, any application filed after 18.07.2022 subject to outer limit provided in section 54 of the Act of 2017 deserves to be allowed, subject ofcourse on fulfillment of the requisite conditions or verification. 7.
Appellant / assessee submissions
petitioner submitted that since the notification dated 13 th July, 2022 was brought into effect from 18.07.2022, all the assessees including the petitioner were entitled for claiming refund of Input Tax Credit on the goods purchased upto 18.07.2022 and yet, the respondents have not decided petitioner’s applications for claim of refund, which were filed on 04.01.2023. 6.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
10.11.2022 issued by the CBITC is declared illegal and arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the purport and import of the Notification dated 13.07.2022. The same is, therefore, quashed to the extent of confining the refund of Input Tax to the application(s) filed upto 18.07.2022. 22.
Operative decision and relief
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 impinges upon petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India. 19.
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. (Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 04:04:08 PM) (Downloaded on 09/09/2025 at 06:43:11 PM)
10.11.2022 issued by the CBITC is declared illegal and arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the purport and import of the Notification dated 13.07.2022. The same is, therefore, quashed to the extent of confining the refund of Input Tax to the application(s) filed upto 18.07.2022. 22.
petitioner’s application(s) dated 04.01.2023 (Annexure-P/2 to Annexure-P/4) for refund in accordance with law, however, within a period of three months from today. While deciding the applications, the respondents shall not rely upon the part of the Circular dated 10.11.2022, which has been quashed.
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- Pune & Ors. vs. Dai Ichi
- Court in the case of Patanjali Foods Ltd. vs. Union of India &
- Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner ST &
- Ors. and Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. vs. Assistant
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on GST refund restriction; prospective notification/circular. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with GST refund restriction; prospective notification/circular. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Maintain a date-and-payment matrix for transfer, agreement, possession, investment and construction; capital-gains exemptions commonly turn on this chronology.
- Preserve portal notices, e-mail/SMS delivery evidence, reply acknowledgements and the statutory appeal timeline; procedural service facts can determine available relief.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: GST refund restriction; prospective notification/circular.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: CGST 54.
- Your matter is at a comparable writ challenge stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Rajasthan High Court considered: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Shree Arihant Oil & General Mills?
The reported High Court decision concerns a refund restriction introduced through delegated material. It treats the relevant notification prospectively and rejects an inconsistent circular restriction, directing refund processing.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2932/2023 Shree Arihant Oil and General Mills, E-299, Agro Food Park, Udyog Vihar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) through its Partner Harsh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, Aged About 40 Years. ----Petitioner Versus 1.
What did the Rajasthan High Court ultimately decide?
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.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on GST refund restriction; prospective notification/circular. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages CGST 54. The relevant statutory version for — should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with GST refund restriction; prospective notification/circular . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- CGST 54 — CGST 54 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of gst refund restriction; prospective notification/circular. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under CGST 54 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on GST refund restriction; prospective notification/circular. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Authorities appearing in this judgment: Pune & Ors. vs. Dai Ichi; Court in the case of Patanjali Foods Ltd. vs. Union of India &; Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner ST &; Ors. and Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. vs. Assistant
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 8 |
| SHA-256 | 0fd638ec9239040411d92e75f085017f0528b02574510737ebf4308a847eae73 |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |