M/S. Indorama INDIA Private Limited (Formerly, Irc Agrochemical Private Limited) vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Indorama India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly IRC Agrochemical Private Limited), filed a refund application on December 29, 2022, seeking Rs. 97,07,274/- for Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on ocean freight for imports between September 1, 2018, and September 30, 2018. This claim was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. M/s. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The refund sanctioning authority, by an order dated February 24, 2023, allowed the refund. However, the revenue department appealed this decision under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appellate authority, by an order dated April 17, 2024, rejected the refund, citing that the Shipping Bill was illegible and did not establish whether foreign or Indian shipping lines were involved.
Held
The Court held that in the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner should be provided with an opportunity to present a legible copy of the Bill of Lading. The reasoning was that this would allow for a fresh consideration of the case on its merits by the appellate authority. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's case, granting them the opportunity to produce the legible Bill of Lading and any other necessary documents for deciding the appeal. The appellate authority is required to conclude these proceedings within one month from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness requires allowing parties to present crucial evidence, especially when it was previously unavailable due to illegibility, to ensure a just decision on the merits of the refund claim.
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, as per Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, represented by Mr. Majumdar, argued that they are prepared to submit a legible copy of the Bill of Lading to the appellate authority for proper consideration of their refund claim. They seek an opportunity to present this evidence. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or CGST authorities regarding the petitioner's request to produce a legible Bill of Lading. Their primary contention, as reflected in the appellate authority's order, was that the provided Bill of Lading was illegible and insufficient to establish the nature of the shipping line involved.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 64
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
9
18-03-2026 AKG Ct. 237
WPA 18050 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 17, 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. 97,07,274/- of Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on the ocean freight component for imports between September 1, 2018, and September 30, 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
3 to consider the case of the petitioner, giving an opportunity 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 18050 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.