Trafigura India Private Limited VS Union of India

In a legal proceeding, Mr. Paritosh Gupta of Gupta Law Associates represented the petitioner, while Mr. Utkarsh Sharma appeared for the Union of India. The petitioner sought several reliefs, including the annulment of RFD – 03 (ZD 2401210024928 dated 7.1.2021 and ZD 2401210025265 dated 7.1.2021), issued by the third party, covering the periods from June 2018 to November 2018 and December 2018 to July 2020. These communications from the third party instructed the petitioner to submit a fresh refund application after addressing noted deficiencies.

In a legal proceeding represented by Mr. Paritosh Gupta of Gupta Law Associates for the petitioner, and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the Union of India, the petitioner seeks several reliefs through a Special Civil Application. The primary prayer is to invalidate RFD – 03 (ZD 2401210024928 dated 7.1.2021 and ZD 2401210025265 dated 7.1.2021) issued by respondent no. 3, which instructed the petitioner to resubmit refund applications after addressing deficiencies. Specifically, the petitioner requests the refund of IGST paid on Ocean Freight for periods spanning June 2018 to July 2020, totaling Rs. 2,57,19,040/- and Rs. 7,61,95,008/- respectively, along with interest at 18% per annum.

The petitioner, engaged in trading major core commodities, operates under CIF agreements with exporters, who in turn contract foreign shippers for goods transportation. The petitioner has fulfilled its tax obligations, including Integrated Goods and Services Tax and Customs duties, on imported commodities such as coal and metals.

In a legal proceeding represented by Mr. Paritosh Gupta of Gupta Law Associates on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the Union of India, several key issues were raised. The petitioner sought to challenge RFD – 03, specifically ZD 2401210024928 and ZD 2401210025265, issued on January 7, 2021, advising them to resubmit refund applications due to deficiencies. The petitioner requested the quashing of these directives and demanded that the respondent authorities refund Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on Ocean Freight for the periods June 2018 to November 2018 and December 2018 to July 2020, totaling Rs. 2,57,19,040 and Rs. 7,61,95,008 respectively, with interest at 18% per annum.

The petitioner, engaged in trading major core commodities, had entered into CIF agreements with exporters, necessitating foreign shipment arrangements for goods. The petitioner fulfilled its tax obligations including IGST and customs duties on imported commodities such as coal and metals. The Revenue department of the Union of India, acting on GST Council recommendations, imposed an additional 5% IGST liability on transportation charges for imported goods via Notifications No. 8/2017 and 10/17 dated June 28, 2017. The petitioner complied with these obligations from July 2017 to July 2020, covering both IGST and the 5% levy on ocean freight charges.

In a legal proceeding represented by Mr. Paritosh Gupta of Gupta Law Associates for the petitioner and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the Union of India, the petitioner seeks relief in the form of quashing RFD – 03 issued by the respondent no. 3, dated January 7, 2021, and directing authorities to refund IGST paid on Ocean Freight. The petitioner, engaged in trading core commodities, entered into CIF agreements, necessitating payment of IGST and customs duties on imported goods like coal and metals. The dispute arises from notifications issued by the Revenue department imposing additional IGST on transportation charges for imported goods, to which the petitioner complied from July 2017 to July 2020. The petitioner now seeks refunds for specified periods totaling Rs. 2,57,19,040 and Rs. 7,61,95,008, plus interest at 18% per annum, citing deficiencies in refund applications advised by the respondent.

In a legal proceeding represented by Mr. Paritosh Gupta of Gupta Law Associates for the petitioner and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the Union of India, the petitioner seeks to invalidate RFD – 03 notices dated 7.1.2021 issued by respondent No. 3. These notices instructed the petitioner to submit fresh refund applications for Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on ocean freight during June 2018 – November 2018 and December 2018 – July 2020, totaling Rs. 2,57,19,040 and Rs. 7,61,95,008 respectively, along with 18% annual interest.

The petitioner, engaged in trading major commodities, imported goods on CIF basis, requiring payment of IGST and customs duties. Notifications No. 8/2017 and No. 10/2017 imposed an additional 5% IGST liability on ocean freight for imported goods, effective from July 2017 to July 2020. The petitioner complied with these requirements.

On 20.12.2020, the petitioner submitted refund claims for IGST erroneously paid on ocean freight during June 2018 to July 2020 via FORM GST RFD-01. However, on 7.1.2021, respondent No. 2 issued RFD-03 deficiency memos, prompting this legal challenge.

In a legal case represented by Mr. Paritosh Gupta of Gupta Law Associates for the petitioner and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the Union of India, the petitioner seeks relief in a Special Civil Application. They aim to annul two deficiency memos, RFD – 03, issued on January 7, 2021 by respondent No. 3. These memos instructed the petitioner to reapply for a refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight, totaling Rs. 2,57,19,040/- and Rs. 7,61,95,008/- respectively, for the periods June 2018 to November 2018 and December 2018 to July 2020, with 18% interest per annum.

The petitioner, engaged in trading major commodities, imported goods under CIF agreements, paying IGST and customs duties, including a 5% IGST on ocean freight per notifications No. 8/2017 and No. 10/17 dated June 28, 2017. These notifications were challenged in court and found unconstitutional in various cases, notably in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India. Following this decision, the petitioner filed refund claims on December 20, 2020, but faced the contested deficiency memos on January 7, 2021.

The legal argument hinges on the validity of the notifications imposing IGST on ocean freight, previously deemed unconstitutional by the Gujarat High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in subsequent appeals. The petitioner contends for the refund based on these legal precedents and seeks relief from the court against the enforcement of the deficiency memos.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: