Case Details: V Ships India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India (2026) 42 Centax 15 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
- S/Shri Bharat Raichandani & Bhagrati Sahu, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P, Himanshu Takke & Amar Mishra, AGPs, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was engaged in providing ship management services to a company situated in the United Kingdom, under an agreement. Prior to the introduction of GST, similar services rendered by the petitioner were treated as export of services under the Service Tax regime and refund claims were granted accordingly. After implementation of GST, the petitioner paid IGST on such services for the period from January 2022 to June 2023 and subsequently claimed refund treating the supplies as zero-rated export of services under Section 16 of the IGST Act. However, the department issued show cause notices alleging that the petitioner was providing intermediary services on a principal-agent basis and therefore the services would not qualify as export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act. Consequently, the refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority, and the rejection was upheld by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the appellate orders, the petitioner filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court contending that the authorities failed to examine the terms and conditions of the underlying agreement, which was crucial for determining the true nature of the services rendered.
High Court Held
The Bombay High Court observed that the appellate authority had failed to examine the terms of the agreement and had not recorded any findings regarding the actual nature of services provided by the petitioner. The Court noted that determination of whether the services constituted intermediary services or export of services required proper consideration of the contractual arrangement and the scope of services rendered thereunder. Relying upon earlier decisions in similar matters, the Court held that non-consideration of the agreement vitiated the impugned orders. Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the appellate orders and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for de novo consideration in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties. All contentions of the parties were kept open.
List of Cases Cited
- K.C. Overseas Education (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India — (2025) 34 Centax 141 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 7]
- Lubrizol Advance Materials India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India — [2026] 185 taxmann.com 270 (Bombay) — Referred [Para 8]
- Magna Automotive India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India — Writ Petition No. 14325 of 2024, dated 8-7-2025 — Referred [Para 7]
- Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India — (2025) 31 Centax 387 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 7]
- Union of India v. K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. — (2025) 34 Centax 222 (S.C.) = 2025 (102) G.S.T.L. 195 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 7]
- Vistex Asia Pacific (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India — (2026) 39 Centax 185 (Bom.) = 2026 (106) G.S.T.L. 279 (Bom.) — Referred [Paras 7, 8]
