Delegated IGST levy cannot survive where it conflicts with the controlling Supreme Court ruling on the transaction.

Serial No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), read with Section 5(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and related notifications, could not validly fasten IGST on the impugned transaction because the issue was treated as governed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay HC held that the delegated levy, to the extent it sought to impose IGST on that transaction, could not survive constitutional scrutiny and was unconstitutional for that limited purpose. The petitions were disposed of with consequential refund directions where tax had been paid.

---

---

Issues: Whether Serial No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017, read with Section 5(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and connected notifications and corrigendum, could validly impose integrated goods and services tax on the impugned transaction.

Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., and the respondents fairly accepted that position. In that light, the notification entry and the connected levy provisions, to the extent they sought to fasten IGST on the impugned transaction, could not survive constitutional scrutiny.

Conclusion: The impugned levy was held unconstitutional to the extent it applied to the transaction in question, in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of with consequential refund directions where tax had been paid, and the challenged levy was invalidated to the stated extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated tax levy that seeks to impose IGST on a transaction already governed by the controlling Supreme Court ruling cannot be sustained when it is inconsistent with the constitutional position affirmed in that ruling.

---