Viterra INDIA Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Viterra India Private Limited, filed seven writ petitions challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals) and a subsequent Rectification Order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals). These orders rejected the petitioner's appeals concerning refund claims for ocean freight paid for various periods between March 2018 and October 2019. The total refund amounts in dispute are Rs.1,99,163/-, Rs.28,930/-, Rs.21,515/-, Rs.1,23,094/-, Rs.25,31,781/-, Rs.2,12,365/-, and Rs.1,07,886/-. The petitioner had previously secured favorable orders from the same High Court for similar refund claims for February 2018 and July 2019.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petitions at the stage of admission. The Court noted that both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that the issue was covered by the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Mohit Minerals vs. Union of India, which was subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The Court found that this precedent had also been followed in two previous writ petitions filed by the petitioner concerning similar refund claims. Therefore, in light of the established legal position and the concessions made, the Court was inclined to allow the present writ petitions. The operative direction was to quash the impugned orders and direct the respondents to sanction and grant the refund amounts along with appropriate interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 03.12.2021 and Rectification Order dated 28.06.2022, which rejected the refund claims for ocean freight, are sustainable in law, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the issue of refund of ocean freight is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India and another vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2022 (61) GSTL 257 (SC)), which upheld the Gujarat High Court's decision in Mohit Minerals vs. Union of India (2020 (3) GSTL 321 (Guj.)). The petitioner contended that this precedent should be applied to their refund claims for the periods in question. The respondents (Revenue) did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim in the judgment. However, they were represented by Senior Standing Counsel.