M/S Trafigura INDIA Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA - Andhra Pradesh High Court, 16 February 2026

APHC010216482024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] TUE AY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 13636/2024 Between:

M/S TRAFIGURA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SACHIN AGARWAL S/O. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAI, AGED 36 YEARS, TAX MANAGER, HAVING OFFICE AT SHOP NO.11, D.NO.- 36-46- 90/7, CNM SHOPPING COMPLEX CUM APARTMENT, MAIN ROAD, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE REVENUE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110 001

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, DOOR NO. 12- 468-4, ADJACENT TO NH16,

SERVICE ROAD, KUNCHANAPALLY, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522501. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, DABAGARDENS CIRCLE, VISHAKHAPATNAM-1 DIVISION, VUDA UDYOG BHAVAN, GANDHI PLACE, SIRIPURAM

JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH- 530003. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and, after going into the validity and legality of the GST provisions, set aside and quash impugned the Impugned Rejection Order issued vide FORM GST RFD- 03 dated 05.02.2024 by Respondent No. 4 as illegal, arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents to sanction entire refund claim with interest to the Petitioner because the Petitioner is eligible for refund under the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Impugned Rejection Order issued vide FORM GST RFD- 03 dated 05.02.2024 by Respondent No.4, pending disposal of the above writ petition IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents to sanction entire refund claim with interest to the Petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

SAI SUNDEEP MANCHIKALAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

O UDAYA KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

The petitioner imports coal and non ferrous metals from various foreign suppliers to sell the same to domestic industries. The petitioner, while importing the said coal and non ferrous metals, had paid for the transportation of such goods and also paid 5% of the amount paid towards ocean freight. Thus, the petitioner for the period from January 2019 to July 2020, had accumulated credit of Rs.5,52,56,084/-, towards the payment on ocean freight. The petitioner initially filed an application for refund of the aforesaid amount under Section 54 of the GST Act. This application had been rejected, with liberty being given to the petitioner to file a fresh refund application.

At that stage, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of The 4th respondent also held that, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was restricted to the petitioner therein and the petitioner herein was not entitled to the benefit of this judgment as the petitioner herein was not a party to the said proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the question of limitation would not arise in the present case, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Alstom India Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.,2 and the judgment of this Court in M/s.Louis Dreyfus Company Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.,3

The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, while holding that the period of limitation of two years set out under Section 54(1) of GST Act, would normally be applicable, further held that the said period of limitation would not be applicable where refund is sought in respect of amounts collected, in relation to a levy of tax that has been declared unconstitutional. This Court, following the said judgment had reiterated the principle that any collection of tax, which is declared to be unconstitutional, would have to be refunded, without reference to the period of limitation set out under Section 54 of the GST Act.

2 2014 (301) E.L.T.446(Guj.) 3 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1668

In that view of the matter, the finding of the 4th respondent, in the impugned order, that the application of the petitioner was beyond limitation would have to be rejected and set aside.

The finding of the 4th respondent that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals would not be applicable to the petitioner herein, cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Mohit Minerals had held that, the levy of GST on ocean freight is without juri iction and unconstitutional. In that process, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also struck down notifications which had been issued to that effect. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same is binding on all Courts and authorities under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is settled law that if any Act, statutory/rule/notification/order is struck down, the same would stand obliterated for the entire country. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Minerals would be applicable in the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, it must be held that the second ground raised by the 4th respondent is also without basis.

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of rejection of the 4th respondent dated 05.02.2024, with a further direction to the 4th respondent, to take steps for processing the refund application of the petitioner and to refund the amounts due to the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of three (03) months from receipt of this order. Needless to say, interest if any, payable to the

petitioner, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

________________

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

Dt.17.02.2026 DSB

191

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

WP.No.13636 of 2024 Dated 17.02.2026

U DSB