This Is Why Kerala High Court Directs Cochin Port Trust To Seek GST Refund on Anchorage Charges

The Kerala High Court has directed the Cochin Port Trust (CoPT) to seek GST refund on anchorage charges as the Streamer Agent are not liable for anchorage charges before 06.10.2020.

The bench of Justice D. K. Singh has observed that a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea is that a current law should govern current activities. The law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit, i.e., the law looks forward, not backwards. The charges cannot be given retrospective effect but will operate only prospectively, i.e., from the date of the amendment brought in in the SoR on 07.09.2020, which was notified only on 06.10.2020. The introduction of a deeming fiction for the first time ought not to change the character of past transactions.

The petitioner is a streamer agent for foreign vessels calling at the major ports in the Country including Cochin Port. During the months of April and May 2020, three foreign vessels, namely MT DELTS SKY, MT DHT FALCON and MT EVRIDIKI, were called at the Cochin Port under the petitioner’s agency. 

The invoices were raised by the Cochin Port Trust (CoPT) for various vessel-related charges, including port dues, towage, pilotage etc. The amount demanded under the three invoices was remitted in full by the petitioner, and the vessels were allowed to sail after the following endorsement made in the three invoices, namely- “No final bill against this VCN. This may be treated as final bill“.

The court held that as the petitioner is not liable to pay the anchorage charges prior to 06.10.2020, the CoPT may take up a case with the GST Authorities for a refund of the GST paid on the anchorage charges sought to be levied on the three vessels in question.

Case Details

Case Title: GAC Shipping (India) Private Limited Versus UOI

Case No.: WP(C) NO. 1992 OF 2021

Date: 10/04/2025

Counsel For Petitioner: P.F.Rosy, Sneha Rajiv, P.Deepak

Counsel For Respondent: T C Krishna

Read More: Jharkhand High Court Allows ITC on Delayed GST Returns Following Finance Act, 2024 Amendment

Mariya Paliwala
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like
Tax Evasion

Tax Evasion | Order Blocking GST ITC By Nullifying Property Alienation Without Fixation Of Liability, Not Sustainable: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the alienation of property…
GST ITC Benefit Can’t Be Denied For Mere Non-Mentioning Of GSTN In Supplier Certificate: Allahabad High Court

GST ITC Benefit Can’t Be Denied For Mere Non-Mentioning Of GSTN In Supplier Certificate: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the benefit of Input Tax…

Allahabad HC Denies ITC, Imposes Penalty on Purchaser for Failing to Prove Actual Supply of Goods Beyond Tax Invoice

The Allahabad High Court has denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) and has…

Govt. Appoints Suresh Choudhary As Deputy Registrar Of GSTAT Jaipur

The government has issued an officer order for appointing Suresh Choudhary as…