Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

Lubrizol Advance Materials India Private LimitedversusThe Union of India

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that the earlier judgment applies, quashing the refund rejection and directing a de novo consideration of the claim.

Summary

Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Private Limited filed a writ petition challenging a GST refund rejection of Rs.59,25,579 for February 2024, which the tax authority deemed ineligible because the services were not considered "export of services" under Section 2(6) of the Integrated GST Act, 2017. The petitioner relied on a recent judgment of the same court in Writ Petition No.987 of 2026, which held that similar services qualify as export and directed a fresh consideration. The respondents did not contest this reliance. The 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 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 tax authority's rejection of the GST refund claim on that ground is legally valid.

Legislation cited

Subjects

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

Judgment

                                                           17-WP-4411-2026.doc


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

                WRIT PETITION NO. 4411 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. a/w Mr. Himanshu Takke, A.G.P., for the
Respondent-State.
                                 ..…
                            CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
                                       SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                DATE     : 21st 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 17 th

November, 2025 and Show-cause Notice dated 13 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


Manisha                                                                  1/3
             Digitally signed
MANISHA      by MANISHA
             BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA   TALEKAR
TALEKAR      Date: 2026.09.22
             19:14:04 +0530
                                                       17-WP-4411-2026.doc


claim of Rs.59,25,579/- for the period February 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 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:




Manisha                                                              2/3
                                                               17-WP-4411-2026.doc


                                       ORDER

           (i) Writ Petition No.4411 of 2026 is allowed.

           (ii) The impugned order in Form GST RFD 06 dated 17 th

           November, 2025 and Show-cause Notice dated 13 th October,

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

           set aside.


           (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.4411 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

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.