Bombay High Court
Lubrizol Advance Materials India Private LimitedversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The impugned refund order and show‑cause notice are quashed, and the refund claim must be reconsidered de novo in accordance with law.
Summary
Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Private Limited filed a writ petition challenging a GST refund order (Form GST RFD 06 dated 20‑Nov‑2025) and a show‑cause notice (16‑Oct‑2025) issued by the tax authority (Respondent No.2). The petitioner claimed a refund of Rs 78,77,449 for December 2024, arguing that its services constitute "export of services" under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 and that the authority’s rejection was based on an erroneous classification as an intermediary. The High Court noted that the same issue had been decided in WP/987/2026, where the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for de novo consideration. Relying on that precedent, the Court quashed both the refund order and the show‑cause notice and directed Respondent No.2 to reconsider the claim afresh, after hearing the parties, within three weeks. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s services qualify as "export of services" under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 for GST refund purposes.
- Whether the Respondent No.2’s rejection of the refund claim was legally valid.
- Whether the earlier judgment (WP/987/2026) mandates remittal of the matter for de novo consideration.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- GST refund
- Export of services
- IGST Act
- De novo consideration
- Show‑cause notice
- Quash order
- High Court
Judgment
10-WP-1633-2026.doc
PURTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRASAD
PARAB ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
PURTI PRASAD
PARAB
Date: 2026.09.03
18:32:58 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 1633 OF 2026
Lubrizol Advanced Materials India
Private Limited … Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents
__________________________
Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Mr. Mahesh Raichandani, Mr. Bhagrati Sahu
and Mr. Tanishq Arora i/b UBR Legal Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for the Respondent – State.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner is seeking to quash and
set aside the impugned order in Form GST RFD 06 dated 20 th November,
2025 and Show-cause Notice dated 16th October, 2025 passed by the
Respondent No.2.
2. The basic contention of the Petitioner is that the action of the
Respondent No.2 was unilateral, the Petitioner’s legitimate refund claim of
Rs.78,77,449/- for the period December 2024 was rejected on an
erroneous premise that the Petitioner is an intermediary and services
rendered by the Petitioner do not qualify as “export of services” under
Purti Parab 1/3
10-WP-1633-2026.doc
Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
states that his case is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court
passed in WP/987/2026 dated 4th March, 2026 in the matter of Lubrizol
Advance Materials India Pvt. Ltd. V/s Union of India & Ors.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents does not dispute this
position.
4. In the matter of Lubrizol Advance Material India Pvt. Ltd.
(supra), this Court had remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority
for de novo consideration and for a fresh order to be passed in accordance
with law. This Petition can be disposed of by passing the same order. In
this premises, the Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the refund
application of the Petitioner in accordance with law. Hence, the following
order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No. 1633 of 2026 is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order in Form GST RFD 06 dated
20th November, 2025 and Show-cause Notice dated 16th
October, 2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 both are quashed
and set aside.
Purti Parab 2/3
10-WP-1633-2026.doc
(iii) The Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the
case of the Petitioner de novo, in accordance with law and
after hearing the parties.
(iv) The Respondent No.2 shall complete the
determination within a period of three weeks from the
communication of this order.
5. Petition is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
6. All contentions of all parties are kept open.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Purti Parab 3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.