Lupin Limited Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court reviewed its earlier order in the case concerning errors and a request for modification of directions issued while remanding the matter. The Court identified multiple clerical mistakes in the original order, including incorrect recording of counsel appearances, misidentification of the authority to whom the matter was remanded (Assistant Commissioner instead of Deputy Commissioner of State Tax), and incorrect attribution of submissions in a paragraph. The Court directed that these corrections be made immediately and a corrected order be uploaded.
On merits, the review was sought regarding a specific direction requiring the authority to examine whether the services in question were for “authorized operations” as endorsed by the specified officer of the zone. This direction was originally issued based on submissions referring to Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which relate to refund eligibility in cases involving authorized operations.
However, the applicant pointed out that the expression “for authorized operations” was inserted into the definition of “Zero Rated Supply” under Section 16 by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from 1 October 2023. The transactions in the present case pertained to the period from March 2020 to June 2023, i.e., prior to the amendment. Upon examining the provision, the Court agreed that the requirement relating to “authorized operations” was not applicable to the relevant period.
