TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2020 (33) G.S.T.L. 321 (Guj.) (Ex. D to the petition). The operative portion of the decision is relevant which reads thus: "254. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached to the conclusion that no tax is leviable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007, on the ocean freight for the services provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India upto the customs station of clearance in India and the levy and collection of tax of such ocean freight under the impugned Notifications is not permissible in law. 255. In the result, this writ-application along with all other connected writ-applications is allowed. The impugned Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017 and the Entry 10 of the Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017 are declared as ultra vires the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as they lack legislative competency. Both the Notifications are hereby declared to be unconstitutional. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of." 3. The said decision of the High Court o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by virtue of the power Article 279A (4) are binding on the legislature's power to enact primary legislations; (ii) On a conjoint reading of Sections 2(11) and 13(9) of the IGST Act, read with Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, the import of goods by a CIF contract constitutes an "inter-state" supply which can be subject to IGST where the importer of such goods would be the recipient of shipping service; (iii) The IGST Act and the CGST Act define reverse charge and prescribe the entity that is to be taxed for these purposes. The specification of the recipient - in this case the importer - by Notification 10/2017 is only clarificatory. The Government by notification did not specify a taxable person different from the recipient prescribed in Section 5(3) of the IGST Act for the purposes of reverse charge; (iv) Section 5(4) of the IGST Act enables the Central Government to specify a class of registered persons as the recipients, thereby conferring the power of creating a deeming fiction on the delegated legislation; (v) The impugned levy imposed on the 'service' aspect of the transaction is in violation of the principle of 'composite supply' enshrined under Section 2(30) rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Fuel Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. Writ Petition No. 19382 of 2017 order dt. 30/1/2023 (the case which involved both categories of contract namely CIF and FOB basis) came to be disposed of in terms of what was held in the case of Mohit Minerals (supra), which order reads thus:- "ORDER Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the issue raised in this petition has been put to rest in case Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 2022 SCC Online SC 657 by the Apex Court. Keeping in view of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner is not liable to pay IGST on ocean freight for services supplied by a person located in non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the customs station of clearance in India. In view of above, the impugned notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (rate) dated 28th June and entry 10 of the Notification 10/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28 June, 2017 are quashed as being ultra vires. With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of." 6. This Court had an occasion to consider a similar case in Liberty Oil Mills Vs. Union of India 2023(72) G.S.T.L. 305(Bom.), where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Petitioner had relied upon the decision of the division bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Mohit Minerals (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [2020] 113 taxmann.com 436/78 GST 519/33 GSTL 321 (Guj.) to which response was given by the Respondents by filing reply affidavit on 27 October 2021 contending as follows: "6. With reference to paragraph 10 of the petition, I say that the Petitioner has submitted its reply to the aforesaid observations vide letter dated 14.07.2020 and have stated that the issue is no longer res integra and has already been settled by the Gujrat High Court in favour of the Petitioner in the case of Mohit Minerals (P) Ltd v. Union of India [2020] 33 GSTL 321 (Gujrat). I say that the said judgment of Gujrat High Court in the Special Civil Application No. 726 of 2018 filed by M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt Limited is assailed before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13958 of 2020 and other connected SLPs. The same are likely to be listed for hearing and final disposal on 26.10.2021. Thus the legal competency or otherwise, as contended by the Petitioner, for levy of tax on the said subject matter in terms of IGST Notification No 8/201....