Bombay High Court

Lubrizol Advance Materials India Private LimitedversusThe Union of India

Decided: 28 September 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is allowed and the impugned order and show‑cause notice are quashed, with the refund application to be reconsidered de novo in accordance with law.

Summary

Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Pvt Ltd filed a writ petition challenging a GST refund denial of Rs.3,91,560 for May 2024, alleging the tax authority wrongly held that its services did not qualify as "export of services" under Section 2(6) of the Integrated GST Act, 2017. The petitioner relied on a recent judgment (Writ Petition No.987 of 2026) where the court remitted a similar matter for de novo consideration. The respondents did not contest the applicability of that precedent. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order and show‑cause notice, and directed the tax authority to reconsider the refund claim de novo within three weeks after hearing both parties. All contentions were kept open pending the fresh determination.

Issues considered

Whether the services provided by Lubrizol Advanced Materials India qualify as "export of services" under Section 2(6) of the Integrated GST Act, 2017.
Whether the refund claim can be denied on the basis that the petitioner is an intermediary.
Whether the tax authority’s order and show‑cause notice were procedurally valid.
Whether the earlier judgment in Writ Petition No.987 of 2026 is binding on the present petition.

Legislation cited

Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 2(6)

Subjects

GST refund
export of services
Integrated GST Act
de novo consideration
quash order
show‑cause notice

Judgment

                                                            9-WP-1673-2026.doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                WRIT PETITION NO. 1673 OF 2026
Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Private Limited
Through its Authorized Representative
Anuraag Kothari                                   .....Petitioner
            Versus
The Union of India and Ors.                             .....Respondents
                               .....
Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Mr. Mahesh Raichandani and Ms.
Bhagrati Sahu i/b UBR Legal Advocates, for the Petitioner.

Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G. P., for the Respondent-State.
                                   ..…
                             CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
                                        SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                    DATE   : 28th 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 18 th

November, 2025 and Show-cause Notice dated 14 th 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.3,91,560/- for the period May 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


Manisha                                                                  1/3
MANISHA       Digitally signed by
              MANISHA
BALKRISHNA    BALKRISHNA TALEKAR
              Date: 2026.09.30
TALEKAR       10:17:40 +0530
                                                           9-WP-1673-2026.doc


Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that his case is squarely

covered by the Judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.987

of 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 these 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.1673 of 2026 is allowed.

           (ii) The impugned order in Form GST RFD 06 dated 18 th

           November, 2025 and Show-cause Notice dated 14 th October,

           2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 both are quashed and

           set aside.

Manisha                                                                 2/3
                                                                9-WP-1673-2026.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.        Writ Petition No.1673 of 2026 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.)




Manisha                                                                      3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.