Marathon Electric India Private Limited UBR LEGAL ADVOCATES vs Union of India — WP/15242/2025

Case under Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act Section 54. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 16th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM010536942025

CASE DISPOSED

e-Filing Number

08-10-2025

Filing Number

WP/33675/2025

Filing Date

10-10-2025

Registration No

WP/15242/2025

Registration Date

11-11-2025

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI , HON'BLE MS JUSTICE AARTI A. SATHE

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI , HON'BLE MS JUSTICE AARTI A. SATHE

Bench Type

Division

Category

INDIRECT TAXES ( 17 )

Sub-Category

GST Goods and Services Tax ( 100 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

16th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act Section 54

Petitioner(s)

Marathon Electric India Private Limited UBR LEGAL ADVOCATES

Respondent(s)

Union of India

State of Maharashtra

The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, PUN APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor) E

The State Tax Officer PIMPLE GURAV 701

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI , HON'BLE MS JUSTICE AARTI A. SATHE

02-04-2026

FOR CIRCULATION

16-04-2026

FOR ADMISSION

15-04-2026

FOR CIRCULATION

Orders

16-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI,HON'BLE MS JUSTICE AARTI A. SATHE

Court Summary The Bombay High Court quashed the April 24, 2023 order rejecting Marathon Electric India's GST refund claim of Rs. 54,31,283 for export of IT services, finding the order lacked specific reasoned findings and was thus a "non-speaking order." The court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for de novo reconsideration within three months, keeping all contentions open for fresh adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Summary The Bombay High Court quashed the April 24, 2023 order rejecting Marathon Electric India's GST refund claim of Rs. 54,31,283 for export of IT services, finding the order lacked specific reasoned findings and was thus a "non-speaking order." The court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for de novo reconsideration within three months, keeping all contentions open for fresh adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case