Bombay High Court

Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Private LimitedversusThe Union of India

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is allowed; the impugned 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 denial of Rs.2,81,34,966 for January 2025, where the tax authority held the company to be an intermediary and said its services did not qualify as "export of services" under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017. The petitioner relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment (WP/987/2026) that had remitted a similar matter for de novo consideration. The respondents did not contest this reliance. The 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 of the parties were kept open.

Issues considered

Whether the services supplied by Lubrizol Advanced Materials India qualify as "export of services" under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017.
Whether the tax authority could unilaterally reject the GST refund claim on the basis that the petitioner is an intermediary.
Whether the earlier judgment in WP/987/2026 mandates a de novo consideration of the refund application.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

GST refund
export of services
IGST Act
de novo consideration
writ petition
quashing order
intermediary

Judgment

                                                                    9-WP-1329-2026.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. 1329 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.2,81,34,966/- for the period January 2025 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
                                                              9-WP-1329-2026.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. 1329 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
                                                                   9-WP-1329-2026.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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.