Bombay High Court
M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS LAWFUL ATTORNEY, MR. ARINDAM SINHAversusUNION OF INDIA THR THE JOINT SECRETARY (REVENUE) AND 3 ORS
- Disposal
- Rule made absolute
Holding
The Court directed payment of IGST by demand draft and ordered the authorities to extend all statutory benefits, effectively granting relief despite the technical glitch.
Summary
JSW Steel Ltd approached the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the customs authorities to rectify a technical glitch in the ICEGATE portal that was automatically adding interest to its IGST payment, contrary to an Order-in-Original dated 2 April 2024 which held that no interest was payable. The petitioner also sought quashing of reassessments of three Bills of Entry and a declaration that it could claim input tax credit of IGST. The respondents admitted the glitch but argued that the petitioner should pay the interest and claim a refund, and relied on a 2024 customs circular and a pending departmental appeal. The Court, relying on precedents that substantive rights cannot be denied due to technical glitches, rejected the respondents' reliance on the circular and the pending appeal. It directed the petitioner to pay the IGST amount via demand draft within two weeks, treating it as a portal payment, and ordered the authorities to extend all consequential benefits, thereby disposing of the petition without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the customs authorities must rectify the ICEGATE technical glitch that adds interest to IGST payments contrary to the Order-in-Original.
- Whether a pending departmental appeal bars the Court from granting relief under the Order-in-Original.
- Whether the 2024 customs circular can be invoked to deny the petitioner relief despite the technical glitch.
Legislation cited
- Customs Act, 1962 — s. 154, 28AA
Subjects
- IGST
- ICEGATE portal
- technical glitch
- interest on tax
- Customs Act
- Section 28AA
- Section 154
- input tax credit
- mandamus
- reassessment
- customs duty
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:309-DB M/S JSW Steel Ltd
Vs.
Union of India and 3 ors.
__________________________________________________
WP-12-2026
Vinita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITON NO.12 OF 2026
M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED,
Having its registered office at
JSW Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400051
Represented by its Lawful Attorney,
Mr. Arindam Sinha,
Deputy General Manager - Legal,
having its office at JSW Centre, Bandra Kurla
Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400051 … PETITIONER.
~ VERSUS ~
1. . Union of India,
Through the Joint Secretary (Revenue),
Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, Room No.46, North Block,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes &
Customs, Through the Chairman,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi, Delhi-110001
3. The Commissioner of Customs, Goa
Customs House, Marmagoa
Goa – 403803
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs
(Gr. I) Customs House, Marmagoa,
Goa - 403803 …RESPONDENTS.
Page 1 of 6
February 17th , 2026
M/S JSW Steel Ltd
Vs.
Union of India and 3 ors.
__________________________________________________
WP-12-2026
A PPEARANCES :
for the Petitioner Mr. Rohan Shah, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Parag Rao, Mr. Kumar Visalaksh
(thorugh VC) Mr. Arihant Tater, Mr.
Akhil Parrikar, Mr. Shulin Singbal, Mr.
Ashwin Shantharam (through VC), and
Ms V. Mahanto, Advocates
for Respondent No.1 Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Deputy Solicitor
General of India
for Respondent No.3 and 4 Ms. Priyanka Kamat, Standing Counsel
CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR,J J.
RESERVED ON : 10th February 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th February 2026
JUDGMENT (PER AMIT S . JAMSANDEKAR, J)
1. Heard Mr. Shah, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner.
2. 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.
3. 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
Page 2 of 6
February 17th , 2026
M/S JSW Steel Ltd
Vs.
Union of India and 3 ors.
__________________________________________________
WP-12-2026
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”
4. 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
Page 3 of 6
February 17th , 2026
M/S JSW Steel Ltd
Vs.
Union of India and 3 ors.
__________________________________________________
WP-12-2026
case of Mahindra and Mahindra Vs. Union of
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.)].
….
6.22 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.
….
7. 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)
5. 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.
6. Ms. Priyanka Kamat, appearing for Respondent No. 2 to 4, has
accepted that there is a technical glitch in the ICEGATE systems. The
Page 4 of 6
February 17th , 2026
M/S JSW Steel Ltd
Vs.
Union of India and 3 ors.
__________________________________________________
WP-12-2026
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.
7. 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.
8. 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
Page 5 of 6
February 17th , 2026
M/S JSW Steel Ltd
Vs.
Union of India and 3 ors.
__________________________________________________
WP-12-2026
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.
10. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms, and the present
petition is disposed of.
11. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. ] [SUMAN SHYAM, J.]
Page 6 of 6
Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK February 17th , 2026
Designation: Private Secretary
Date: 21/02/2026 10:39:53
Checking your session…