IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Om Narayan Rai WPA 10415 of 2025 Sunrise Timply Company Pvt. Ltd.

vs.

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv.

Ms. Alisha Das, Adv.

Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv.

Ms. Elina Dey, Adv.

Ms. Rupomita Ghosh, Adv.

For the State : Mr. S.K. Dutt, Adv.

Mr. Saptak Sanyal, Adv.

Mr. Debraj Sahu, Adv.

For the CGST Authority : Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Bijiresh Mukherjee, Adv.

Hearing Concluded on : 19.01.2026 Judgment on : 19.01.2026 Om Narayan Rai, J.:-

1. This writ petition assails an order in original dated January 30, 2025 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017/ West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the said Act of 2017) as well as an order dated March 25, 2025 passed by the Proper Officer thereby rejecting the petitioner’s application for rectification.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. A proceeding under Section 74 of the said Act of 2017 had been initiated against the petitioner by issuing a notice to show cause dated September 8, 2021 alleging that the petitioner had failed to make payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (hereafter “IGST”) on ocean freight (under reverse charge mechanism) for goods imported by it. The petitioner replied to the said notice to show cause on October 23, 2021.

3. Later on, another notice dated July 13, 2022 was issued to the petitioner which too was replied by the petitioner on August 8, 2022.

4. In all the replies which the petitioner furnished, the petitioner took a consistent stand that in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.¹ the petitioner was not liable to pay IGST on ocean freight for imported goods.

5. The petitioner was thereafter granted an opportunity of personal hearing by the Proper Officer on September 26, 2024. After the hearing, the petitioner filed a written submission on October 07, 2024 reiterating that the petitioner could not be held liable to pay IGST on ocean freight for goods imported by it while referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd.

6. Ultimately on January 30, 2025, the Proper Officer passed the impugned order in original thereby holding the petitioner liable to pay Rs.18,61,047/-

on account of IGST on ocean freight for its imports.

1 2020 (1) TMI 974 – Gujrat High Court; 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 49

2 [2022]138 taxmann.com 331 (SC); (2022) 10 SCC 700

7. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for rectification of the said order in original thereby once again reiterating its stand that in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. (supra) as well as other subsequent judgments of various High Courts, the petitioner could not be held liable to pay IGST on import ocean freight.

8. The said application for rectification also got rejected by an order dated March 25, 2025. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :

9. Mr. Mazumder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Proper Officer has imposed a tax liability on the petitioner in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. (supra). It is submitted that once the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that IGST was not leviable on ocean freight for import of goods, the Proper Officer had no jurisdiction to impose such levy on the petitioner.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS :

10. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent CGST Authorities submits that the order in original has been passed upon correct interpretation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that law as laid down by the Hon’ble Sup