IGST on composite supply bars separate IGST on services; notifications enabling dual levy and show cause quashed

HC held that separate levy of IGST on supply of services, when IGST is already imposed on the composite supply of goods, is impermissible. Relying on the SC decision in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., HC ruled that a tax on the service component cannot be independently imposed when it is already subsumed in the tax on composite supply of goods. Consequently, the declaration under Sl.No.10 of N/N. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) and Sl.No.9(ii) of N/N. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), insofar as they enabled such levy, could not be sustained. The show cause notice dated 15.12.2021 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether notifications treating the importer as deemed recipient of overseas shipping services and imposing IGST on such services (Sl.No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST (Rate) and Sl.No.9(ii) of Notification No.8/2017-IGST (Rate)) are ultra vires the Constitution and the IGST/CGST enactments.

2. Whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation of the IGST Act and the CGST Act, the import of goods under a CIF contract constitutes a composite supply such that IGST on the composite supply (including freight/transportation) precludes a separate levy of IGST on the service component (freight) through reverse charge notifications.

3. The scope and validity of delegated rule-making under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the IGST Act and Section 7(3) of the CGST Act (power to notify transactions as goods or services), including whether such notifications can create deeming fictions identifying recipients for reverse charge or classify imports of goods as imports of services (or vice versa).

4. Whether recommendations of the GST Council are binding on the Union/States and the extent to which such recommendations constrain executive rule-making under the CGST/IGST Acts (as relevant to the validity of the impugned notifications and the legislative/regulatory scheme).

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of notifications deeming importer as recipient and imposing IGST on overseas shipping services (constitutional/statutory vires)

Legal framework: Sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the IGST Act (reverse charge and power to specify recipients), Section 2(93) CGST Act (definition of recipient), Section 2(30)/Section 8 CGST Act (composite supply), Section 20 IGST Act (supply in case of import), Section 7(3) CGST Act (power to notify transactions as goods or services), and the overall scheme of GST enacted by the Constitution (Articles as amended).

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's detailed pronouncement analyzing identical issues. That precedent upheld the validity of the impugned notifications insofar as they were issued under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the IGST Act (i.e., the Government has power to notify recipients and prescribe reverse charge), but held that a separate levy on the service component conflicts with the composite supply regime.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepts that delegated legislation under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) may specify the recipient for reverse charge and create a deeming fiction for a class of registered persons. The impugned notifications are therefore legally capable of being issued under the statutory heads cited. However, statutory validity of a notification does not answer whether its effect is consistent with other statutory provisions - notably Section 8 and the concept of composite supply. In CIF contracts the transportation/insurance service is part of the bundle supplied to the importer; tax on the composite supply under Section 5(1)/Section 20 would already include freight. Imposing additional IGST on the shipping service via reverse charge would amount to double taxation and would be inconsistent with the statutory composite supply regime.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Notifications issued under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) are within the delegated power to specify recipients for reverse charge, but the effect of the notifications cannot contravene the statutory principle of composite supply (Section 8/Section 2(30)). Obiter - Any broader statements about factual contract privity between foreign exporter and importer (e.g., whether importer is party to the foreign contract) are explanatory and not necessary to the legal ratio.

Conclusions: The impugned notifications, though within the rule-making power to specify recipients, cannot validly operate to impose an additional IGST on the freight/service component where that component is already subsumed within a taxable composite supply to the importer; thus the notifications are ultra vires to the extent they impose separate tax on the service component in CIF imports.

Issue 2 - Whether import under CIF is an inter-state/composite supply and whether IGST on composite supply precludes separate IGST on bundled service

Legal framework: Section 2(11) and Section 13(9) IGST Act (inter-state supply definitions and principles), Section 2(30) and Section 8 CGST Act (composite supply and principal supply), Section 20 IGST Act (supply in case of import), and Section 5(1) IGST Act (levy of IGST on import).

Precedent treatment: The controlling Court analysis concludes that import under a CIF contract is an "inter-state" supply and that the transportation/insurance elements provided by the seller/foreign shipper form part of the composite supply to the importer. The earlier appellate treatment recognized that while transactions might be viewed as separate legs, the statutory composite supply doctrine requires viewing the relevant bundle together for taxation.

Interpretation and reasoning: Section 8 mandates that where goods and services are naturally bundled, the transaction must be taxed as a composite supply with tax applied on the principal supply. In CIF imports the seller's obligation to deliver goods includes transportation and insurance - these are components of the same supply to the importer. To treat the freight as a separate taxable service for the importer would be to dissect the bundle and violate Section 8 and the GST scheme designed to avoid multiplicity of taxation on the same economic transaction.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - CIF imports are composite supplies where freight/insurance are integral components; once IGST is levied on the composite supply to the importer, a separate levy on the freight/service portion via notification is impermissible. Obiter - The theoretical possibility that transactions could be regarded as independent legs in different contractual settings is discussed but does not detract from the statutory rule applicable to CIF arrangements.

Conclusions: Import under CIF constitutes a composite interstate supply; IGST on the composite supply includes freight and thereby precludes a separate IGST on the shipping service for the importer.

Issue 3 - Permissible scope of delegated power (Sections 5(3)/(4) IGST; Section 7(3) CGST) to create deeming fictions or to re-characterise transactions

Legal framework: Sections 5(3) and 5(4) IGST (reverse charge and notification power), Section 7(3) CGST (power to notify transactions to be treated as goods or services), constitutional/amendment context affecting Council recommendations.

Precedent treatment: The Court follows the prior determination that Section 5(4) permits the Central Government to specify classes of registered persons as deemed recipients (i.e., a delegated power to create a legislative deeming fiction), and that Notification 10/2017 is clarificatory rather than designating a taxable person other than that prescribed by Section 5(3).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Government may, by notification, specify recipients for reverse charge (including classes of registered persons). Section 7(3) gives power to treat transactions as goods or services for statutory purposes, but it does not empower the executive to disaggregate a legally cognizable composite supply into separate taxable events where the statute mandates treatment as a composite supply. The delegated power cannot be exercised in a manner that contradicts the substantive statutory scheme mandating composite treatment.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Delegated powers under Sections 5(3)/(4) and 7(3) exist and permit specified notifications, but such notifications must operate within and not in contradiction to the substantive statutory scheme (e.g., Section 8 composite supply). Obiter - Discussions of policy limits of delegation and hypothetical other notifications are illustrative.

Conclusions: Delegated notifications specifying recipients or treating transactions as goods/services are valid instruments of executive action, but cannot be employed to create taxes that violate the statutory mandate of composite supply or otherwise produce double taxation inconsistent with the CGST/IGST scheme.

Issue 4 - Binding nature of GST Council recommendations and their bearing on rule-making under the CGST/IGST Acts

Legal framework: Constitutional amendments establishing GST Council and its recommendations; Article interplay (as analyzed by the higher Court) between Articles governing legislative competence and the Council's role.

Precedent treatment: The prior authoritative analysis holds that recommendations of the GST Council are recommendatory and not binding on the Union and States; the Court reiterates that the Council's recommendations have persuasive value but do not operate as binding diktats curtailing parliamentary or State legislative authority.

Interpretation and reasoning: Constitutional amendment choices (deletion/inclusion of specific Articles) indicate an intent that the GST Council's recommendations be persuasive rather than compulsorily binding. The legislative powers of Parliament and State Legislatures to enact GST laws remain simultaneous and independent; recommendations cannot be elevated to override primary legislation or to justify executive acts that contravene statutory text (including composite supply rules).

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - GST Council recommendations are recommendatory and not binding on the Union/States; they do not validate executive action that otherwise conflicts with statutory provisions. Obiter - Observations on cooperative federalism as a mode of governance are contextual commentary supporting the ratio.

Conclusions: The recommendatory character of GST Council advice does not cure or validate notifications that operate inconsistently with the statutory scheme; rule-making remains constrained by the text and structure of the CGST/IGST Acts.

Final Outcome Applied to the Present Proceedings

The Show Cause Notice issued to the taxpayer was quashed and the writ petition allowed: although the notifications were issued under powers conferred by the IGST Act, they cannot validly operate to levy IGST a second time on the freight/service component of a CIF import that is already taxable as part of the composite supply to the importer; therefore the impugned levy is invalid insofar as it attempts to tax the same component twice.

---