IGST Refund Denial for Illegible B/L Set Aside | HC
- News|Blog|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 17 April, 2026
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Indorama India (P.) Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal [2026] 185 taxmann.com 161 (Calcutta)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Kausik Chanda, J.
-
Abhratosh Majumdar, Avra Mazumdar, Ms. Alisha Das and Ms. Rupomita Ghosh for the Petitioner.
-
Manasi Mukherjee, Bijitesh Mukherjee, Tanoy Chakraborty and Saptak Sanyal for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner had filed a refund application in Form GST-RFD-01 seeking a refund of IGST paid on ocean freight in respect of import transactions for the relevant period. The claim was made relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Minerals case [2022] 138 taxmann.com 331 (SC)/[2022] 92 GST 101 (SC)/[2022] 61 GSTL 257 (SC). The refund sanctioning authority allowed the claim after examination of the application. The department thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority challenging the sanction of refund. The appellate authority allowed the departmental appeal and reversed the refund solely on the ground that the shipping line status was not verified and that the bill of lading on record was illegible. The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the appellate authority had reversed the refund on the basis of illegibility of the bill of lading and absence of verification regarding the shipping line. It was observed that the question of refund eligibility required consideration of a legible bill of lading along with the relevant documentary evidence on record. The High Court further held that the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity to place a legible copy of the bill of lading and other relevant documents before the appellate authority. It was held that the denial of such an opportunity vitiated the consideration of the matter on the merits. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for reconsideration after granting due opportunity to the petitioner.
List of Cases Referred to
- Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 331 (SC)/[2022] 92 GST 101 (SC)/[2022] 61 GSTL 257 (SC).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
