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. (formerly IRC Agrochemical Private Limited), sought a refund of Rs. 1,76,67,958/- for Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on the ocean freight component of imports made between July 1, 2018, and July 31, 2018. This 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 refund sanctioning authority initially allowed the refund by an order dated February 24, 2023. However, the department appealed this order under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appellate authority, by an order dated April 26, 2024, rejected the refund sanction order.
Held
The Court held that in the given facts, the petitioner should be provided an opportunity to produce a legible copy of the Bill of Lading and any other necessary documents before the appellate authority. The Court reasoned that this would allow the case to be considered afresh on its merits. The appellate authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner's case, granting them the opportunity to submit legible documentation. The appellate authority is to conclude these proceedings within one month from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that procedural deficiencies in documentation, if rectifiable, should not preclude a substantive consideration of a refund claim, especially when a higher court's judgment forms the basis of the claim.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the refund sanction order without considering the petitioner's claim on merits, specifically regarding the nature of the shipping lines involved in the import transactions? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax 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, implying that the appellate authority's rejection was based on illegible documentation and that they should be given an opportunity to rectify this. Revenue's contention: The appellate authority's order, as quoted, indicated that the Reviewing Authority found that the refund sanctioning authority (RSA) had neither made any analysis nor given any findings as to whether the Shipping Lines involved were Foreign or Indian. The appellate authority noted that while the respondent (petitioner) stated a foreign shipping line was engaged and enclosed a bill of lading, this document was not legible enough to substantiate the claim.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 64
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
12
18-03-2026 AKG Ct. 237
WPA 18061 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. 1,76,67,958/- of Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on the ocean freight component for imports made between July 1, 2018, and July 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 the date of this order. Accordingly, WPA 18061 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.