JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Uchit N. Sheth for the petitioner and learned Advocate Ms. Hetvi Sancheti for the respondents. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Hetvi Sancheti for the respondents waives service of notice of rule for the respondents. 3. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner has challenged order dated 01.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting refund of IGST Paid by the petitioner in view of Entry No.1 of Notification No. 10 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017. It is also prayed to direct the respondent authorities to grant refund of the amount of IGST to the tune of Rs.40,30,715/- which was paid by the petitioner in view of aforesaid Notification. It is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 10 of 2017, the petitioner was asked to pay IGST on ocean freight in respect of CIF value by superintendent of Central Tax during visit to premises of the petitioner on 26.12.2018. 5. Brief facts of the case are as under: 5.1 The petitioner, which is a Public Limited Company and registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act , 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "GST Act") is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, refining, and trading of edible oils, vanaspati, bakery fats, soya food products, and allied commodities. The petitioner imported several consignments of Crude Palm Oil during the year 2018-19 under Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) contracts. When the goods are imported by the petitioner Company inside the country, bill of entry for home consumption is filed by the petitioner. 5.2 It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of clearance of the goods for home consumption, the petitioner company pays Customs duty and Integrated Goods and Services Tax on the total value of goods which is the Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) value. 5.2 It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of clearance of the goods for home consumption, the petitioner company pays Customs duty and Integrated Goods and Services Tax on the total value of goods which is the Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) value. 5.3 Section 5 (3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as "IGST") empowers the Government to specify the categories of supply of goods or services or both, and the tax on such goods or services shall be paid on reverse charge basis by the recipient of such goods or services. The category of supply of services is mentioned in Entry No.10 of the Reverse Charge Notification. 5.4 Thereafter, the petitioner deposited IGST on ocean freight on Imports for a period 01.04.2018 to 30.11.2018 to the tune of Rs. 40,30,715/- and vide order dated 21.02.2019 contended before the respondent that such deposit has been made under protest as the petitioner is not liable to pay GST on ocean freight relating to the CIF imports. 5.5 It is the case of the petitioner that after the Judgment of this Court in Mohit Minerals vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 74 GSTR 134, which was confirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals in 2022 10 SCC 700 which held the aforesaid notifications to be ultra vires, the petitioner being eligible for refund of IGST filed application for refund under FORM GST RFD-01 on 18.03.2025 claiming refund of Rs. 40,30,715/-. 5.6 The refund application was duly acknowledged by the jurisdictional authority and acknowledgment in FORm GST RFD-02 was issued on 03.04.2025. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice in FORM GST RFD-08 on 03.04.2025 proposing to reject the refund application of the petitioner on the ground that the application is time-barred under limitation as prescribed under section 54(1) of the GST Act. 5.7 The petitioner vide letter dated 19.04.2025 filed his reply against aforesaid show cause notice contending that limitation as prescribed in Section 5 4 of the GST Act was inapplicable in the case of the petitioner as the levy itself was held to be ultra-vires. 5.7 The petitioner vide letter dated 19.04.2025 filed his reply against aforesaid show cause notice contending that limitation as prescribed in Section 5 4 of the GST Act was inapplicable in the case of the petitioner as the levy itself was held to be ultra-vires. 5.8 Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed impugned order dated 01.05.2025 in FORM GST RFD-06 rejecting the refund application of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner had not filed any writ petition for seeking refund and that the refund application is time barred under section 54 of the GST Act. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this petition. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth for the petitioner submitted that with the commencement of levy of Goods and Services Tax under the law with effect from 1.7.2017, the Notification No. 8 of 2017 dated 28.6.2017 provided that the IGST at the rate of 5% shall be levied on inter-state supply of services when the goods are transported in a vessel etc. Another Notification No. 10 of 2017 dated 28.6.2017 came to be issued notifying that in respect of services supplied by a person located in the non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by vessel from a place outside India upto the Custom Clearance Station in India, the entire IGST shall be paid on the reverse charge basis by the importer. The corrigendum dated 30.6.2017 was issued. It was provided therein that in the circumstances mentioned therein, the IGST shall be collected at the rate of 10% of the CIF value. 6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth further submitted that the aforementioned Notification Nos. 8 of 2017 and 10 of 2017 both dated 28.6.2017 read with corrigendum dated 30.6.2017 came up for consideration for their validity before this court. This court in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India being Special Civil Application No. 726 of 2018 decided on 23 rd January, 2020 held the said notifications to be unconstitutional and ultra vires the statute. The decision has been followed in Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. vs. UOI [2020 (35) GSTL 82 (Guj.)], Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. vs. Union of India [2020 (41) GSTL 292 (Guj.)] and in Comsol Energy Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat [TS-1241- HS(GUJ)-2020-GST]. The decision has been followed in Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. vs. UOI [2020 (35) GSTL 82 (Guj.)], Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. vs. Union of India [2020 (41) GSTL 292 (Guj.)] and in Comsol Energy Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat [TS-1241- HS(GUJ)-2020-GST]. Thereafter, the judgement of this Hon. Court in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been confirmed by Hon. Supreme Court by its judgement in Union of India v/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 700 . 6.2 Learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth further submitted that the above position and law emanating from the decision of this court and Hon. Supreme Court in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) could not be disputed by learned advocates for the respective parties. He stated that similar issue came up for consideration before the co-ordinate Bench in ADI Enterprises vs. Union of India being Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No. 10479 of 2019 wherein the question was about refund of the IGST paid pursuant to the aforementioned Notifications. The court directed respondents to refund the amount of IGST already paid by the applicants pursuant to Entry No.10 of Notification No. 10 of 2017. 6.3 In ADI Enterprises (supra), the court recorded thus in para 3 - “Learned advocate appearing for the applicant would submit that the reason for filing the present application is that vires of Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017- IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 issued under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act , 2017 was challenged by the applicant by way of captioned writ petition along with other identical writ petitions. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.1.2020 passed in the captioned writ petition along with other writ petitions allowed the writ petitions and declared Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017- IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 as ultra vires the Act. He would further submit that during the pendency of the present application, Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2022 and allied appeals preferred at the instance of the respondents also came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 19.5.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court." 6.4 The Court thereafter directed in para 4 as under - “In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the present application requires consideration and hence, the same is allowed in terms of prayer 6 (a). The respondents are hereby directed to grant refund of the amount of IGST already paid by the applicants pursuant to the Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 along with statutory rate of interest on such refund within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of necessary documents by the applicants.” 6.5 Learned advocate Mr. Sheth submitted that in view of the decision in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), since the impugned Notifications have already been declared as ultra vires, present petition deserves to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Hetvi Sancheti for the respondent, could not controvert the above submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth for the petitioner. 8. Considering the above submission, the claim for refund of the petitioner towards IGST is liable to be favourably considered. In view of the above Judgement and dictum of law, the refund application of the petitioner ought not to have been rejected by the respondent-authorities as the same would not be covered by provisions of Section 54 of the GST Act and the same is required to be refunded by the respondent- authorities. 9. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the refund application of the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The competent authority of the respondents shall verify the amount of refund and grant such refund of the amount of IGST paid by the petitioner pursuant to the Entry No.10 of the above notification within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with the statutory rate of interest. 10. The present petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.