Case Details: Lupin Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (2026) 41 Centax 317 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Anil L. Pansare & Raj D. Wakode, JJ.
- S/Shri Prakash Shah, Senior Counsel, Mohit Rawal & Akshaya Sudame, Counsels, for the Applicant.
- S/Shri S.S. Hulke, AGP & M.I. Dhatrak, Special Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a Special Economic Zone unit, had sought a refund of tax paid on services supplied to it. In the earlier remand order, the High Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax to examine whether the services under question were for authorized operations as endorsed by the specified officer of the zone. In review proceedings, reliance was placed upon Section 16 of the IGST Act, read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, to contend that a refund could be granted only if the services were for authorized operations. The petitioner submitted that the expression ‘for authorized operations’ was inserted in Section 16(1) (b) of the IGST Act with effect from 01-10-2023 and, therefore, such condition could not govern the transactions under consideration. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the expression ‘for authorized operations’ was inserted in Section 16(1)(b) of the IGST Act only with effect from 01-10-2023 and that the transactions under consideration pertained to the period prior to such amendment. It held that the requirement relating to authorized operations could not be applied for the relevant period merely because Rule 89 of the CGST Rules contained reference to such expression. The High Court therefore deleted the earlier direction requiring examination of whether the services were for authorized operations. It, however, granted liberty to the jurisdictional authority to raise such a plea before the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, with a direction that the same, if raised, would be considered on its own merits.
