Declarations under Entry 9 (Notif. 8/2017) and Entry 10 (Notif. 10/2017) taxing service in composite supply held ultra vires IGST Act

HC held that declarations under Entry 9 of Notification No.8/2017 and Entry 10 of Notification No.10/2017, which sought to impose IGST on a service component already taxed as part of a composite supply of goods, were ultra vires the Constitution and the IGST Act. Relying on the SC decision in Mohit Minerals, the court ruled that a separate tax on the service cannot be sustained where the legislation already taxes the composite supply, and allowed the petition.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether notifications treating the importer as the deemed recipient of shipping/transportation services and imposing IGST on those services are ultra vires the Constitution and the IGST/CGST Acts.

2. Whether the impugned notifications amount to a permissible exercise of power under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the IGST Act read with Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, including the validity of creating a deeming fiction to treat a class of registered persons as recipients.

3. Whether the principle of "composite supply" under Section 2(30) read with Section 8 of the CGST Act prevents a separate levy of IGST on the service component (freight) when that component is already included in the value of imported goods for levy of IGST.

4. Whether the specification by notification of the recipient for reverse charge purposes (Notification 10/2017 / Entry 10 and Notification 8/2017 / Entry 9) merely clarificatory or amounts to altering the statutory taxable person prescribed by the IGST Act.

5. Whether recommendations of the GST Council are binding on the Union and States when the executive frames notifications/rules under the CGST/IGST Acts.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of notifications imposing IGST on service component when importer already taxed on composite import

Legal framework: Section 5(1) of the IGST Act levies IGST on inter-state supplies including imports; Section 2(30) and Section 8 of the CGST Act define and govern composite supply and principal supply; Section 20 of the IGST Act applies valuation rules for imports.

Precedent Treatment: The Court follows the reasoning in the authoritative judgment excerpted, which analyzed similar notifications and transactions (CIF contracts) and concluded that double levy on the same composite transaction is impermissible.

Interpretation and reasoning: In a CIF contract the supply of goods to the importer includes transportation and insurance services bundled with the goods; treating the transportation service as a separate taxable supply for levy of IGST on the importer would dissect a transaction that Parliament intended to tax as a composite supply. The statutory scheme (Section 8) mandates taxation of the bundle where a principal supply exists. The respondent State/Union cannot treat the two legs as independent for one purpose (to identify recipient) and connected for another (to justify levy), since such selective fragmentation would violate the composite supply principle and the GST scheme.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A separate levy of IGST on the service element of a CIF-import where that element is part of the composite supply taxed as import of goods violates Section 8 and the GST scheme. Obiter - Observations on potential future vivisection of other components (insurance, packaging) serve as warning but are not the primary holding.

Conclusions: Notifications imposing tax again on the service component already included in the value of imported goods are in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act and the overall GST scheme and are liable to be struck down to that extent.

Issue 2 - Permissibility of treating importer as deemed recipient under Sections 5(3)/5(4) IGST and Section 2(93) CGST

Legal framework: Section 5(3) of the IGST Act provides for reverse charge where the recipient is liable; Section 5(4) empowers the Central Government to notify a class of registered persons as recipients for reverse charge; Section 2(93) defines "recipient".

Precedent Treatment: The Court accepted that, on a conjoint reading of Sections 2(11), 13(9) of the IGST Act and Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, import of goods under CIF may be an inter-state supply where the importer is the recipient of shipping services.

Interpretation and reasoning: The statutory provisions can support classifying the importer as recipient for reverse charge purposes; Notification 10/2017 is clarificatory insofar as it specifies the recipient envisaged by Section 5(3). Section 5(4) legitimately confers delegated power to create a deeming fiction to treat a class of registered persons as recipients.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The impugned notifications insofar as they operate as clarificatory specifications of the recipient under the reverse charge provisions are within the power conferred by the IGST Act. Obiter - The acceptance that importers can be recipients in CIF contexts is contextual to the composite supply analysis.

Conclusions: The notifications are valid as exercises of power under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) to specify/clarify recipients for reverse charge; however, that validity does not permit a separate levy that contravenes the composite supply principle (see Issue 1).

Issue 3 - Clarificatory character of notification specifying the taxable person for reverse charge

Legal framework: Section 5(3) prescribes recipient liability; delegated legislation may clarify implementation under statutory contours.

Precedent Treatment: The Court finds that the notification did not create a taxable person different from that prescribed in Section 5(3) but served a clarificatory role.

Interpretation and reasoning: The specification by notification of the recipient for reverse charge merely aligns administrative identification with the statutory recipient; it cannot be read as enlarging or modifying the statutorily prescribed taxable person beyond the scope of the Act.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Notification as clarification of recipient for reverse charge is permissible; Obiter - Limitations on delegated power when it attempts to create substantive deviations from statutory text.

Conclusions: Specification by notification is valid only to the extent that it clarifies who the recipient is under the statute and does not have the effect of independently imposing a second taxable incidence on a component already taxed as part of a composite supply.

Issue 4 - Scope of Section 5(4) enabling deeming fiction and limits of delegated power

Legal framework: Section 5(4) authorizes Central Government to notify a class of registered persons as recipients for reverse charge; powers of delegated legislation are subject to the statute and constitutional limits.

Precedent Treatment: The Court acknowledges that Section 5(4) confers power to create a deeming fiction and that such delegated power was validly exercised insofar as it remains within statutory purpose and does not contravene other statutory mandates (e.g., composite supply).

Interpretation and reasoning: Delegated power to deem a person a recipient is legitimate; however, the exercise cannot be used to circumvent the substantive scheme of GST (e.g., create double taxation by separating a composite supply into taxable fragments contrary to Section 8).

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Delegated power under Section 5(4) to notify classes of recipients is valid and can create deeming fictions; Obiter - Boundaries of that power emphasised to prevent legislative overreach.

Conclusions: The exercise of Section 5(4) power to notify importers as recipients is lawful as a deeming fiction, but such notification cannot be effective to impose a separate tax inconsistent with the composite supply doctrine.

Issue 5 - Binding nature of GST Council recommendations on Union and States

Legal framework: Constitutional provisions governing GST Council and Articles inserted/amended by the Constitutional Amendment affecting Article 279/279A and Article 246A.

Precedent Treatment: The Court holds that recommendations of the GST Council are recommendatory and not binding on the Union or States.

Interpretation and reasoning: The constitutional amendments and structure (deletion/inclusion of specific Articles and absence of non-obstante clauses) indicate Parliament intended Council recommendations to be persuasive rather than binding; treating them as binding would disrupt the simultaneous legislative competence of Union and States and distort cooperative federalism.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Union and States; Obiter - Discussion on federal dialogue and policy implications.

Conclusions: Council recommendations carry persuasive value and the executive/legislatures remain bound to the statutory text; rulemaking must nevertheless have regard to Council recommendations but is not subordinate to them as binding edicts.

Cross-reference and overall conclusion

Cross-reference: Issues 1-4 are interrelated - while notifications under Sections 5(3)/5(4) can validly specify importers as recipients (Issues 2-4), such specifications cannot operate so as to impose a separate IGST on service components already included in a composite supply of imported goods (Issue 1). Issue 5 informs the limits of deference to GST Council recommendations in legislative and rulemaking exercises.

Final conclusion: Notifications are valid insofar as they clarify the recipient for reverse charge under the IGST Act and insofar as Section 5(4) legitimately creates a deeming fiction; however, the notifications are invalid to the extent they permit or effect a separate levy of IGST on the service component of a CIF-import that has already been taxed as part of the composite supply of imported goods in contravention of Section 8 of the CGST Act and the scheme of GST.

---