The Madras High Court has set aside the rejection of a refund application filed by a SEZ unit for unutilised ITC on export of goods under Letter of Undertaking, reiterating that Section 54 read with Rule 89 does not restrict the right to claim refund only to the supplier to the SEZ unit, and that the SEZ unit itself is entitled to file such a claim. The ruling by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy in WP No. 26469/2026 (M/s McKinsey Global Services India Pvt. Ltd., now McKinsey Global Capabilities and Services Pvt. Ltd., decided 18.09.2026) follows the court’s own decisions in Platinum Holdings (2021) and Urjita Electronics (2025).
The refund authority had rejected the claim on the ground that only suppliers supplying goods/services to SEZ units are eligible to claim refund and there is no enabling provision for the SEZ unit itself. The court held that the second proviso to Rule 89 referring to a supplier of an SEZ was only one kind of entity that may make an application under Rule 89, and does not exclude other applicants. The word ‘only’ which the officer read into the provision does not exist in the rule.
- 2026-juristway.com-2623-HC(Madras)-GST | High Court of Madras | WP No. 26469 of 2026 | 18.09.2026