M/S. Indorama INDIA PVT. LTD. (Formerly, Irc Agrochemical PVT. LTD.) vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Indorama India Pvt. Ltd., sought a refund of Rs. 64,54,500/- for Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on the ocean freight component of imports made between January 1, 2019, and January 31, 2019. This claim followed the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. M/s. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The refund sanctioning authority initially allowed the refund on February 24, 2023. However, the department appealed this order under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellate authority, by an order dated April 26, 2024, rejected the refund sanction order. The primary reason for rejection was the appellate authority's finding that the Shipping Bill of Lading was illegible, preventing verification of whether foreign or Indian shipping lines were involved, which was crucial for substantiating the refund claim.
Held
The Court held that in the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner should be provided with an opportunity to produce a legible copy of the Bill of Lading. The Court reasoned that this would allow the case to be considered afresh on its merits by the appellate authority. The operative direction was to remand the matter back to the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to consider the petitioner's case, granting them an opportunity to submit a legible copy of the Bill of Lading and any other necessary documents. The appellate authority was instructed to conclude these proceedings within one month from the date of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to produce a legible copy of the Bill of Lading before the appellate authority for reconsideration of the refund claim, given that the original Bill of Lading was illegible and led to the rejection of the refund by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are prepared to produce a legible copy of the Bill of Lading before the appellate authority for consideration. Revenue's contention: The revenue (State and CGST authorities) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the illegibility of the Bill of Lading or the opportunity to produce a legible copy. The appellate authority's order, which formed the basis of the revenue's appeal, highlighted the illegibility of the Bill of Lading as a critical deficiency.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 64
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
13
18-03-2026 AKG Ct. 237
WPA 18063 of 2024
M/s. Indorama India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly, IRC Agrochemical Private Limited) Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Mr. Avra Mazumdar, Ms. Alisha Das, Ms. Rupomita Ghosh …for the Petitioner Mr. Manasi Mukherjee, Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee, …for the CGST Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Mr. Saptak Sanyal …for the State
The petitioner challenges an order of the appellate authority dated April 26, 2024, passed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by which the appellate authority rejected a refund sanction order dated February 24, 2023, passed under Section 64 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It appears that the petitioner submitted a refund application in the prescribed form GST-RFD-01 dated December 29, 2022, for a refund of Rs. 64,54,500/- of Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on the ocean freight component for imports made between January 1, 2019, and January 31, 2019, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. M/s. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., reported at 2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 257 (SC).
2 The refund sanctioning authority, by an order dated February 24, 2023, allowed the refund. The department, however, preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The essential ground on which the appeal was allowed is apparent from paragraph 5.4.4 of the order of the appellate authority. The said para 5.4.4 is quoted below: “5.4.4 However, agreeing with the view of the Reviewing Authority I find that RSA has neither made any analysis nor given any findings as to whether the Shipping Lines involved in this case were Foreign Shipping Lines or Indian Shipping Lines. The respondent in their reply dated 16.10.2023 stated that in the instant case, foreign shipping line was engaged by the foreign supplier. And according to them to evident the said fact they enclosed bill of lading wherein in the details of the shipping line involved is clearly mentioned. But that enclosed bill is not legible at all to correlate and substantiate the claim of the respondent.” Mr. Majumdar, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is prepared to produce a legible copy of the Bill of Lading before the appellate authority for consideration. This Court is of the view that, in the facts of the case, the petitioner should be provided with such an opportunity so that the case can be considered afresh on merits. In view of the aforesaid, I direct the appellate authority to consider the case of the petitioner, giving an opportunity
3 to produce a legible copy of the Bill of Lading and any other documents required for consideration by the appellate authority in deciding the appeal. The appellate authority shall conclude the proceedings in terms of this order within one month from the date of this order. Accordingly, WPA 18063 of 2024 is disposed of. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Kausik Chanda, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.