Lyka Labs faces GST demand of Rs 73.22 Lakhs
Lyka Labs has received a show cause cum demand notice from the Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East, demanding Rs. 73,22,077. The notice alleges erroneous refunds of IGST on exports under Advance Authorization, contravening Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The company disputes the demand, citing the omission of the rule and a relevant High Court judgment, and stated there is no material impact on its financials.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Lyka Labs has received a show cause cum demand notice from the Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East, demanding Rs. 73,22,077. The notice, vide Centralised SCN No. CGST/ME/AE/AC/Lyka/2026-27, was issued on June 11, 2026, and received by the company on June 17, 2026. It alleges that the pharmaceutical entity claimed erroneous refunds of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on exports made under Advance Authorization, contravening Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
The department contends that the company availed of ineligible refunds by claiming IGST on exports while simultaneously benefiting from tax exemptions on imports under advance licenses. The total demand includes Rs. 67,92,481 related to exports under advance licenses for FY 2021-22 to FY 2024-25, and Rs. 5,29,596 related to exports made with a 0.1% tax rate for FY 2020-21 to FY 2023-24. The authorities have invoked Section 74 and Section 74A of the CGST Act, 2017, to recover the amount along with interest and potential penalties.
In its response to the exchange, Lyka Labs disputed the demand, arguing that Rule 96(10) was omitted from the CGST Rules effective October 2024 without a saving clause. The company contends that this omission nullifies the basis for the allegations and renders the continuation of proceedings legally untenable. It further cited a Kerala High Court judgment in the case of Sance Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI & Ors, which declared the rule ultra vires.
The company disclosed that it is exercising its right to defend the allegations. Management stated that the demand is disputed and that there is no material impact on the financials, operations, or other activities of the company. The notice requires the company to show cause within 30 days of receipt as to why the demand should not be confirmed.
Breakdown of Demand
| Category | Period | Amount (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| IGST on exports under advance licenses | FY 2021-22 to FY 2024-25 | 67,92,481 |
| IGST on exports with 0.1% tax rate | FY 2020-21 to FY 2023-24 | 5,29,596 |
| Total Demand | 73,22,077 |
Historical Stock Returns for Lyka Labs
| 1 Day | 5 Days | 1 Month | 6 Months | 1 Year | 5 Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -3.83% | -2.35% | +14.59% | -9.48% | -40.98% | +27.49% |
How will the omission of Rule 96(10) from the CGST Rules in October 2024 impact the legal validity of similar pending demands for other pharmaceutical exporters?
What is the likelihood of the Kerala High Court judgment in the Sance Laboratories case being upheld or referenced in Lyka Labs' defense during adjudication?
Will this dispute lead Lyka Labs to reassess its compliance mechanisms for claiming IGST refunds under Advance Authorization moving forward?


































