M/S. Jsw Steel Limited, Represented By Its Lawful Attorney, Mr. Arindam Sinha vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Joint Secretary (Revenue) And 3 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/S JSW Steel Limited, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the erroneous inclusion of interest on IGST in the re-assessment of three Bills of Entry. The Petitioner argued that a technical glitch in the ICEGATE portal prevented them from making IGST payments without interest, despite an Order-in-Original dated April 2, 2024, which explicitly held that no interest was payable. The Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the re-assessment and a writ of mandamus to rectify the error and generate fresh challans excluding the interest component. The Respondents acknowledged the technical glitch but suggested the Petitioner pay the interest and claim a refund, and also pointed to pending appeal proceedings against the Order-in-Original.
Held
The Court held that substantive rights of assessees cannot be denied on account of technical glitches, referencing judgments from the Supreme Court in Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Limited and this Court in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. The Court found that the pendency of the department's appeal against the Order-in-Original was not a valid ground to refuse to follow the Order-in-Original itself, especially when the Order-in-Original had clearly held that no interest was payable. The Court also noted that the technical glitches in the ICEGATE system had not been resolved despite previous court directions and that the Circular dated December 23, 2024, did not address the Petitioner's specific problem. To provide a practical solution, the Court directed the Petitioner to pay the IGST amount of Rs. 4,04,83,583/- by way of a demand draft within two weeks. This payment would be treated as if made through the ICEGATE portal, and all consequential benefits would flow to the Petitioner. The authorities were directed to ensure these benefits were extended. The Court made the Rule absolute in these terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the re-assessment of Bills of Entry to the extent they erroneously include interest on IGST, considering the Order-in-Original held no interest was payable (Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Article 141 of the Constitution of India)? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to rectify the ICEGATE portal and generate fresh challans excluding the interest component, given the technical glitch preventing payment without interest (Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962)? 3. Whether the Petitioner can be denied substantive rights due to a technical glitch in the ICEGATE portal, and if so, whether the pendency of the department's appeal against the Order-in-Original is a valid ground for denial? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the technical glitch in the ICEGATE portal should not cause them to suffer, especially when the Order-in-Original clearly stated no interest was payable. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Cosmo Films Limited and Circular No. 16/2023-Cus. They argued that substantive rights cannot be denied due to system errors, citing judgments like Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Limited. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents admitted the technical glitch but proposed that the Petitioner pay the interest and seek a refund. They argued that the Petitioner could not claim relief as the department had challenged the order not to impose interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962, and appeal proceedings were pending. They also relied on Circular No. 27/2024-Customs.
Sections Cited
Section 154, Section 28AA, Section 141
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (PER AMIT S . JAMSANDEKAR, J)
Heard Mr. Shah, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
Rule. The service is waived by Mr. Faldessai, the Learned Deputy Solicitor General, on behalf of the 1st Respondent and Ms. Kamat on behalf of the 3rd and 4th Respondent. The Rule made returnable forthwith, and by consent of the parties the petition is heard finally.
The Petitioner is before this Court, inter alia, on the ground that a technical glitch in the ICEGATE portal is preventing their ability to make payments of IGST. The Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, inter
M/S JSW Steel Ltd Vs. Union of India and 3 ors. __________________________________________________ WP-12-2026 February 17th , 2026
alia, directing the authorities to address this technical glitch in the ICEGATE portal. The Petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and settling aside the re- assessment of three Bills of Entry (Nos. 5837032 dated 03.04.2018, 5933704 dated 11.04.2018 and 4337890 dated 11.12.2017) to the extent that they erroneously purport to levy or include any component of interest on the IGST demand; b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No. 4 to rectify the reassessment of said Bills of Entry under section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as the errors in the ICEGATE portal, by excluding the interest component, and to generate fresh electronic challans on ICEGATE confined only in respect of IGST demand as confirmed in the Order-in- Original dated 02.04.2024; c. Declare that the Petitioner is entitled to avail input tax credit of IGST so paid, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cosmo Films Limited (supra) and Circular No. 16/2023-Cus. dated 07.06.2023”
In the present case, the Order-in-Original dated 02nd April 2024 clearly holds that no interest is payable. The Order-in-Original follows the judgment of this Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Vs. Union of India [(2023) 3 Centax 261 (Bom)], which has subsequently been upheld by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., [(2023) 9 Centax 361 (S.C.)]. The relevant extract of the Order-in-Original dated 02.04.2024 is set out below: “6.18 I find that the Noticee has claimed that no interest is payable on payment of amount equivalent to the IGST exemption availed by the Noticee. They placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in M/S JSW Steel Ltd Vs. Union of India and 3 ors. __________________________________________________ WP-12-2026 February 17th , 2026 India [(2023) 3 Centax 261 (Bom)] wherein it is held that that penalties or interest on additional customs duty (CVD) and special additional duty of customs (SAD), or surcharges, which are not intrinsically linked to the basic customs duty, cannot be imposed without explicit substantive provision. The said decision has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Versus Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [(2023) 9 Centax 361 (S.C.)]. ….
22 I note that in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India all decisions of the Apex Court are binding on the lower authorities and in keeping with the judicial discipline cannot be ignored. I am of the considered opinion that the ratio decidendi of the judgment applies squarely to the imposition of interest on late payment of IGST, therefore, I refrain from imposing any interest as proposed in SCN.
….
In view of the above, I pass the following order: (c) I refrain from imposing interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962, from them on such duty of Customs referred in (a) above;”
(emphasis supplied)
It is submitted by Mr. Shah that while the adjudication order has clearly held that no interest is payable, a technical glitch in the ICEGATE systems is automatically computing the interest. This is contrary to the Order-in-Original dated 2nd April 2024. He submits that the assessee cannot be made to suffer due to the technical glitch in the system.
Ms. Priyanka Kamat, appearing for Respondent No. 2 to 4, has accepted that there is a technical glitch in the ICEGATE systems. The M/S JSW Steel Ltd Vs. Union of India and 3 ors. __________________________________________________ WP-12-2026 February 17th , 2026
system, while computing the payment of IGST, automatically computes the interest. There is no mechanism in the system to manually correct the problem that the Petitioner is facing. However, she submitted that the Petitioner should pay the interest and then claim refund of the same. She further submits that the Petitioner cannot claim any relief in the present proceedings because the department has challenged the order not to impose interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962, and the appeal proceedings are pending. She also relies on a Circular No.27/2024-Customs dated 23rd December 2024 to oppose the present petition.
We have heard the Learned Counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the record and the Order-in-Original dated 2nd April 2024. By judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs Union of India & Others [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3565] and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Limited vs UOI [2025 SCC Online SC 1798], it has been held that the substantive rights of assessee’s cannot be denied on account of technical glitches.
The pendency of the department's appeal cannot be a ground for refusing to follow the Order-in-Original. The Petitioner cannot make payment of IGST, without interest, only because of the technical glitches. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Limited (supra) and by this Court in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (supra), the substantive rights of assessee’s cannot be denied on account of technical glitches. In both judgments, the concerned authorities have been directed to resolve the technical
M/S JSW Steel Ltd Vs. Union of India and 3 ors. __________________________________________________ WP-12-2026 February 17th , 2026
glitches in the ICEGATE systems in a time bond manner so as to ensure that the assesses are not denied their rights and are not driven to litigation. However, it appears that the authorities have not solved the technical glitches so far. The time limit granted by the Court to resolve the technical glitches has also since expired. The Circular dated 23rd December 2024 does not solve the problem faced by the Petitioner. In any case, in view of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the Respondent cannot oppose this petition on the basis of the Circular dated 23rd December 2024. 9. Therefore, to address the issue practically, we direct that the Petitioner shall make payment of IGST of Rs. 4,04,83,583/- by way of a demand draft to be paid within two weeks from today. Such payment once made, will be treated as if it were a payment via the ICEGATE portal and all consequential benefits, as available in law, will flow to the Petitioner. All relevant authorities are ordered and directed to ensure that all consequential benefits available in law are extended to the Petitioner after the payment of IGST, by way of a Demand Draft, as directed above.
The Rule is made absolute in the above terms, and the present petition is disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to cost.
[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. ] [SUMAN SHYAM, J.] Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK Designation: Private Secretary Date: 21/02/2026 10:39:53
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.