V Ships India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

14.WP1534_2025.DOCVidya AminIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO. 1534 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION (L) NO. 12279 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1934 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1931 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION (L) NO. 12348 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1929 OF 2024WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1924 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 3640 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2038 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1925 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1765 OF 2025 V Ships India Pvt. Ltd....PetitionerVsUnion of India & Ors....Respondents_________Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w. Mr. Bhagrati Sahu i/b. UBR Legal Advocates for thepetitioner in all the petitions.Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4/State inWP/1534/2025, WP/1765/2025, WP/1924/2025 and WP/2038/2025.Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4/State inWP/1934/2025, WPL/12279/2025, WPL/12348/2025 and WP/3640/2025.Mr. Amar Mishra, AGP for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4/State in WP/1931/2025,WP/1925/2025 and WP/1929/2025.__________CORAM:G. S. KULKARNI &AARTI SATHE, JJ.DATE:01 APRIL 2026.P.C.1.This batch of petitions raises common issues of law and facts, hence theyPage 1 of 801 April 2026

14.WP1534_2025.DOCare being disposed of by this common order. For convenience, we refer to thefacts of the lead petition.2.The case of the petitioner is that it is engaged in the business of providingship management services, as also is engaged in the export of such services. Anagreement dated 15 January, 2013 was entered by the petitioner with one V.Group Manpower Services (VGMS) situated at 63, Queen Victoria Street,London, United Kingdom to provide Ship management services. A copy of theagreement is annexed to the Paper Book at Exhibit ‘C’. Although these petitionsconcern different periods, we need not delve on the specific periods, suffice it toobserve that it is the petitioner’s case that prior to the introduction of the GSTlaws, qua the Ship management services provided under similar agreements, thepetitioner’s applications for refund of service tax paid by the petitioner on such“export of services”, were favourably considered and the petitioner was grantedrefund under the service tax provisions, on satisfying of the relevant conditionsunder Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, prevailing at the relevant time. 3.The dispute in the present proceedings also has arisen qua the similartransactions in regard to which IGST was paid by the petitioner, under the presentregime of GST, being brought into effect from 1 April, 2017. Pertinently, theagreement in question qua the payment of the IGST and a claim for refund is thevery agreement dated 15 January, 2013 whereunder the petitioner is providing“export of services” to VGMS, for the different periods. The relevant periodsubject matter of the present proceedings is from January, 2022 to June, 2023.Page 2 of 801 April 2026

14.WP1534_2025.DOCFor convenience, the relevant periods (Writ Petition wise) have been set out bythe petitioner in the chart, which are required to be noted, which read thus:Sr.No.ListingSr. No.Writ PetitionPeriodOIO/RFD-06dateOIA No. & Date117WP(L) No.12436 of 2025Jan. 2022 toMar.202202.11.2022The Writ Petitions atSr. No. 1 to 6, in thistable, challenges thecommon Order-in-Appeal in Form GSTAPL 04 bearing No.JC/App-VI/GST-264/22-23/24-25/ 27dated 30.01.2025216WP(L) No.12330 of 2025July 2021 toSept. 202130.08.2022315WP(L) No.12339 of 2025June 2021 30.08.2022412WP(L) No.12352 of 2025Oct. 2021 toDec. 202130.08.2022510WP(L) No.12297 of 2025April 202119.07.2022645WP(L) No.12406 of 2025May 202112.08.2022713WP(L) No.13772 of 2025October 2022to Dec. 202228.08.2023The Writ Petitions atSr. Nos. 7 to 11, in thistable, challenges thecommon Order-in-Appeal in Form GSTAPL 04 bearing No.JC/App-VI/GST-105/23-24/24-25/- 22pg. 4, Mumbai dated30.01.2025842WP(L) No.12348 of 2025January 202322.08.2023940WP(L) No.12297 of 2025February 202322.08.20231011WP(L) No.14036 of 2025March 202305.03.20241114WP(L) No.12350 of 2025April 2023 toJune 202309.07.20244. It is the petitioner’s case that in respect of export of services as rendered bythe petitioner to VGMS, the petitioner has become entitled for refund of theIGST as deposited by the petitioner, on the applicability of Section 16 of theIGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the petitioner filed refund application in FormRTD-01. The department issued notice in RFD 08 to the petitioner to showcause as to why refund claim of the petitioner should not be rejected, on theground that the services to VGMS were provided on principal-agent basis and noton principal to principal basis. The designated officer also asserted that the saidPage 3 of 801 April 2026

14.WP1534_2025.DOCservices be termed as an “intermediary services”, hence will not qualify as an“export of services” under section 2(6) of the IGST Act. 5.The petitioner filed its reply to the show cause notice. The adjudicatingauthority has passed an order rejecting the refund application of the petitioner forall such periods, the details of which are set out in the aforesaid chart. Thepetitioner assailed the orders passed by the adjudicating authority before theAppellate Authority in separate appeals. The Appellate Authority by theimpugned order has rejected the petitioner’s appeals. It is in these circumstances,the present petitions are filed.6.At the outset, Mr. Raichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner wouldsubmit that the petitioner’s case was based purely on the agreement dated 15January, 2013 where the export of service in question was the issue for the periodin question. He submitted that as to what is the effect of the terms and conditionsof Agreement dated 15 January, 2013 under which the petitioner is exportingservices has not been considered in the impugned order passed by the AppellateAuthority. He submitted that in fact there is no discussion, whatsoever, on suchentitlement of the petitioner, which was very much recognized under the regimeprior to the GST regime under the Service Tax Rules which prevailed at therelevant time. It is hence submitted that the provisions of IGST are required to beapplied in the context of the agreement in question and on verification of thenature of the transaction by recording a finding as to whether the transactions inquestion were in fact the transactions of export of services so as to attract thePage 4 of 801 April 2026

14.WP1534_2025.DOCprovisions of Section 16 of the IGST Act, namely, the supplies are zero ratedsupplies, thereby the petitioner becoming entitled for refund.7.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused therecord and the impugned order, we find substance in the contention as urged onbehalf of the petitioner. We find that no finding is recorded in the impugnedorder, in regard to the terms of the agreement in the context of the nature ofservices as provided by the petitioner in regard to which the petitioner filed itsrefund application. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also be correctin the contention that the petitioner would stand assisted by the decision ofthis Court in Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union ofIndia1 and Magna Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.2 whereinthe facts before the Court were similar. Mr. Raichandani has also drawn ourattention to the orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court inK.C.. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. The Union of India & Ors.3,wherein in similar circumstances the Court allowed the Writ Petition. Againstsuch orders, the Supreme Court rejected a Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.21104-21105/2025 filed by the department by an order dated 25 August, 2025, acopy of which is also placed on record. Our attention is also drawn by Mr.Raichandani to the decision of this Bench in Vistex Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. vs.Union of India & Ors.4 wherein in similar circumstances considering the nature ofthe clauses in the agreement and the decision of this Court in Sundyne Pumps1 Writ Petition No. 15228 of 20232 Writ Petition No. 14325 of 20243 Writ Petition No. 3914 of 2024 decided on 3 March, 2025. 4 Writ Petition No. 4852 of 2022 decided on 6 January, 2026Page 5 of 801 April 2026

14.WP1534_2025.DOCand Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court allowed the petition,whereby the order as impugned therein, of rejecting the refund, as upheld by theAppellate Authority, was quashed and set aside and the proceedings wereremanded to the Appellate Authority .8.Also, Lubrizol Advance Materials India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors.5, was a similar case which had fell for consideration of this Bench in whichorders similar to the orders in Vistex Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. (supra) were passed bythis Court. The relevant observations in that regard are required to be noted: “6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused therecord, we are of the opinion that considering the nature of the impugned orderas passed by Respondent No.2, the same is required to be reconsidered byRespondent No.2 in the context of a due consideration to the Petitioner’scontention qua the arrangements between the parties in agreement(s) inquestion. In the case of Vistex Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, thisBench had made the following observations:- “15. Mr. Raichandani has also placed reliance on the circular dated 20September 2021, which, in the context of ‘export of services’, was alsoreferred in paragraph 30 of the order passed by the Division Bench ofthis Court. He also refers to a Circular of even date issued by the CentralBoard of Indirect Taxes and Customs in the context of “clarification ondoubts related to scope of intermediary and scope of intermediaryservices”, and more particularly, as to what has been set out in paragraph3 and its sub-paragraphs i.e. paragraphs 3.1 to 3.6 thereof. Mr.Raichandani has also drawn our attention to the specific case made out bythe petitioner before the appellate authority, not only in the context ofthe purport of the said circular vis-a-vis the relevant provisions of theIGST Act and the CGST Act, but also to the contentions as urged by thepetitioner in its appeal, wherein he submits that it was categoricallycontended that the petitioner was not engaged in marketing /consultation and implementation services (paragraph 2.4.2 of the memoof appeal) and the other grounds raised therein.16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused therecord, the circular(s) dated 20 September 2021 (supra), the impugnedorder, and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in SundynePumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as noted hereinabove, weare of the considered opinion that, although the appellate authority hastaken into consideration certain clauses of the agreement, in the light ofwhat has been held by this Court in Sundyne Pumps and Compressors5 Writ Petition No. 987 of 2026Page 6 of 801 April 2026

14.WP1534_2025.DOCIndia Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and qua the applicability of the said circular(s)s tothe service agreement in question, the matter would require anappropriate examination by the appellate authority on all the pointsurged on behalf of the petitioner and the specific findings recorded.17. In this view of the matter, keeping open all contentions of the parties,some of which we have discussed hereinabove, we are of the clear opinionthat it would be in the interest of justice to remand the proceedings to theappellate authority for de novo consideration of the department’s appeal,as allowed by the impugned order dated 22 February 2022. Hence, thefollowing order:-ORDERi. The impugned order dated 22 February 2022 is quashed and setaside.ii. The proceedings are remanded to the appellate authority (JointCommissioner, CGST & CX,Appeals-I, Mumbai) for de novoconsideration and for a fresh order to be passed in accordance withlaw, after hearing the parties.iii. The appellate authority shall complete the appropriatedetermination within a period of three months from today.iv. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.v. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.”8. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to pass the following order:-ORDERa. The impugned order dated 19th November 2025 is quashed andset aside.b. The proceedings stand remanded to Respondent No.2 for ade novo consideration and for a fresh order to be passed inaccordance with law, after hearing the parties.c. The appellate authority shall complete the determination within aperiod of three months from today.d. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.e. The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.”9.In the aforesaid circumstances, we are in agreement with Mr. Raichandanithat the petitioner would be similarly situated as in the aforesaid cases as discussedhereinabove. Page 7 of 801 April 2026

14.WP1534_2025.DOC10.Ms. Chavan, learned Additional Government Pleader although hasopposed these petitions, would also not disagree that the authority could havemade appropriate observations, on consideration of the petitioner’s case, by takinginto consideration the agreement dated 15 January, 2013, which was the primarycontention of the petitioner.11.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, in our considered opinion, it is inthe interest of justice that these petitions be disposed of in terms of the followingorder:O R D E R(i)The impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority ineach of these petitions are quashed and set aside.(ii)The proceedings stand remanded to the AppellateAuthority for a de novo consideration and for a fresh order to bepassed in accordance with law after hearing the parties.(iii)The Appellate Authority shall complete the determinationwithin a period of three months from the date the copy of thisorder is made available.(iv)All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.12.The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.(AARTI SATHE, J.)(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)Page 8 of 801 April 2026