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., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 26, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order rejected a refund sanction order dated February 24, 2023, which had allowed a refund of Rs. 80,81,538/- of Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on the ocean freight component for imports between October 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018. The refund application was filed on December 29, 2022, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. M/s. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The appellate authority rejected the refund primarily because the Bill of Lading submitted to evidence the engagement of a foreign shipping line by a foreign supplier was illegible.
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 and any other necessary documents before the appellate authority. The reasoning was that this would allow the case to be considered afresh on its merits. The Court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's case, granting them the opportunity to submit clear evidence. The appellate authority was instructed to conclude these proceedings within one month from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness requires an opportunity to rectify documentary deficiencies when such rectification is sought and can lead to a proper adjudication of the merits of a claim, especially when the initial rejection was based on illegible evidence.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to produce a legible copy of the Bill of Lading and other relevant documents before the appellate authority for reconsideration of the refund claim, considering the illegibility of the document relied upon by the petitioner. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, submitted that it is prepared to produce a legible copy of the Bill of Lading before the appellate authority for consideration. The petitioner argued that an opportunity to present clear evidence is necessary for a fair adjudication of their refund claim. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the State in opposition to the petitioner's request for an opportunity to produce legible documents. The appellate authority's order, as quoted, focused on the illegibility of the provided Bill of Lading and the lack of analysis regarding the nature of the shipping lines involved.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 64
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
8
18-03-2026 AKG Ct. 237
WPA 18048 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. 80,81,538/- of Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on the ocean freight component for imports between October 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, 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 date. Accordingly, WPA 18048 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.