Case Details: Indian Ocean Garnet Sands Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner (Revision Authority), Mumbai (2025) 31 Centax 300 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
- Shri S. Muthu Venkataraman, for the Petitioner.
- Shri N. Dilip Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, engaged in the export of garnets, filed rebate claims under Notification No. 41/2012-ST for refund of service tax paid on input services used for exports. These garnets were processed from beach sand allegedly supplied by a proprietary concern owned by the Managing Director of the petitioner company. It was revealed through a District Level Committee Report that the sand had been illegally mined in violation of Tamil Nadu Government’s G.O. (Ms) No. 156 dated 08.08.2013. The claims for rebate were rejected by the original authority and upheld successively by the Appellate Authority and the Revision Authority on the grounds that the exports were sourced from illicit mining activities and hence did not qualify for incentives meant to promote legitimate trade. The petitioner challenged the rejection before the High Court, arguing that services were lawfully availed and the benefit under the notification should be granted.
High Court Held
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that no export incentive or rebate can be granted for goods derived from illegal mining, particularly when the very same individual who perpetrated the illicit activity (Director of the assessee and proprietor of the supplier concern) was seeking the benefit in the name of a corporate entity. The Court emphasised that the public purpose embedded in Section 93A of the Finance Act, 1994 and Notification No. 41/2012-ST necessitates that such exemptions apply only to lawful exports. The lifting of the corporate veil revealed that the exporter and the offender were the same, and allowing such a rebate would effectively amount to incentivising proceeds of crime. The Court further clarified that mere inaction by Customs authorities does not legitimise an otherwise illegal export, nor does it entitle the petitioner to service tax refund on that basis.
List of Cases Cited
- Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners — (1921) 1 KB 64 — Relied on [Para 27]
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Yokogawa India Ltd. — (2017) 2 SCC 1 — Relied on [Para 28]
- V.V. Minerals v. Commissioner of Gst & Ce, Madurai — 2022 (56) G.S.T.L. 167 (Tri. – Chennai) — Distinguished [Paras 9, 21, 29, 31]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 41/2012-S.T., dated 29-6-2012 [Paras 6, 7, 11, 18, 19, 32, 33, 36]
- Notification G.O.Ms. No. 156, Industries (MMD) Department, dated 8-8-2013 [Paras 24, 34]
