Supreme Court upheld Gujarat High Court judgment of Mohit Minerals
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 21 May, 2022
Case Details: Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. - [2022] 138 taxmann.com 331 (SC)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant & Vikram Nath, JJ.
Facts of the Case
The assessee had challenged the IGST levy on reverse charge basis on the Ocean Freight in respect of import of goods under CIF contracts for which it was already paying the IGST at the time of import with the value of imported coal under the Customs laws. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that IGST levy on ocean freight is ultra-vires the levy provisions of the IGST Act. Against the said order, the Government filed the appeal before the Apex Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Apex Court has observed that the ocean freight from foreign location to customs station in India in CIF import contracts has sufficient territorial nexus for levying IGST under reverse charge. On an interpretation of Sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the IGST Act, read with Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, it is clear that the importer can be classified as the ‘recipient’ of the services. On this interpretation, the validity of the notifications levying GST under RCM on ocean freight has to be upheld.
The Apex Court held that there is no legal fiction or power to bifurcate the composite supply into supply of goods and supply of services and to levy reverse charge GST on supply of services component under section 5(4) of the IGST Act. Given this, the GST on reverse charge basis can’t be levied on ocean freight in CIF contracts as it is part of ‘composite supply’ attracting section 2(30) and section 8 of CGST Act.
In view of the above, it was held that the impugned notifications are validly issued under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the IGST Act, but it would be in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act and the overall scheme of the GST legislation as no such power can be noticed with respect to interpreting a composite supply of goods and services as two segregable supply of goods and supply of services.
List of Cases Reviewed
-
- Mohit Minerals v. Union of India [2020] 113 taxmann.com 436 (Guj.) affirmed.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied