TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-26/B-135, Navi Mumbai dated 26-12-2025 passed by the Respondent no. 3 (Exhibit-F); b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and/or direction to stay the proceedings of Show cause notice No. DC/RAI-AUDIT-E-0003/DRC-01/2021-22/25-26/B-104, NAVI MUMBAI dated 24-9-2025 and Order No. DC/RAI-AUDIT-E-0003/DRC-07/2021-22/25-26/B-135, Navi Mumbai dated 26-12-2025 passed by the Respondent no. 3." 2. The primary grievance of the Petitioner is that the show-cause notice No. No. DC/RAI AUDIT-E-0003/DRC-01/2021-22/25-26/B-104, Navi Mumbai, dated 24th September 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned show-cause notice") and the order bearing No. DC/RAI-AUDIT-E-003/DRC-07/2021-22/25-26/B-135, Navi Mumbai dated 26th December 2025 passed by Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order") terming the place of supply of transportation, service of transportation of goods as India, i.e., taxable territory and holding the Petitioner liable for Goods and Services Tax (GST) is arbitrary and against the mandate of law. 3. The facts lie in a narrow compass, which are as follows:- (i) The Petitioner is engag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Writ Petition No. 17243 of 2025 was pending, passed the impugned order dated 26th December 2025 confirming the Integrated Goods & Service Tax (IGST), Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) and State Goods & Service Tax (SGST) demand of Rs. 14,13,56,125/- Rs. 84,38294/- and Rs. 84,38,294/- respectively, totaling to Rs. 15,82,32,713/- which was inclusive of tax, interest and penalty. It is this action on the part of the Respondents in issuing the impugned show cause notice and passing the impugned order, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 7. Heard Mr. Shroff, learned Senior Advocate, with Mr. Durgesh Nadkarni instructed by Mr. Ashok Singh for the Petitioner and Ms. Shruti Vyas, Additional Govt. Pleader with Mr. Aditya Deolekar, APP for the Respondents. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the papers and proceedings and proceed to decide the present petition. 8. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the challenge as mounted in the present petition, stands covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 10 SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner is located in India and the recipient of the service i.e. the supplier of goods was located outside India, the said location had to be determined as per the provisions of Section 13 of the IGST Act. He further submitted that in the facts of the present case, the provisions of Section 13(9) of the IGST Act which was applicable during the period 2021-22 would apply and the said provision during the relevant period is reproduced below : "The place of supply of service of transportation of goods, other than by way of mail or courier, would be the place of destination of such goods". He therefore, submitted that in view of the aforesaid provisions place of supply of goods, in the facts of the present case, was the destination of goods i.e. delivery point which is India. Further the aforesaid section 13(9) was omitted with effect from 1st October 2023 and it amended section 13(2) of the IGST Act, which made the place of supply the location of recipient of the service and no longer the destination of goods to where the supply was made. For ease of reference, the amended Section 13(2) of the Act is reproduced below: "Section 13. Place of supply of services where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case are squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals (supra). 10. Per contra, Ms. Shruti Vyas along with Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar on behalf of the Respondents has submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the impugned show cause notice and impugned order have been correctly passed, whereby the refund granted to the Petitioner erroneously has been recovered. She further submitted that in the facts of the present case the provisions of the amended Section 13(9) of the Act would be applicable and the Petitioner would be liable for IGST under forward charge being place of supply i.e. India (the taxable territory). 11. At the outset, we are of the view that there is no dispute that in the facts of the present case the Petitioner provides vessel services on a Hire and Freight basis, and further that the buyer of the goods pays custom duty on freight and hence the goods are imported on CIF basis. It is our view that once the aforesaid goods are imported on a CIF basis and the customs duty in respect thereof has been discharged by the buyer of the goods, then the same amount cannot be liable for IGST under forward ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustration provided under Section 2(30) of CGST Act, where the principal supply is that of goods. Thus, the intent of the Parliament was that a transaction which includes different aspects of supply of goods or services and which are naturally bundled together, must be taxed as a composite supply. 167. The Union Government has urged that this Court must look beyond the text of the contract between the foreign shipping line and the foreign exporter to identify the Indian importer as the recipient of the services. This Court has upheld the validity of the impugned notifications on this ground. The Union Government is contradicting the main plank of its submission now by contending that the two legs of the transaction are separate standalone agreements. That would imply, that while on the one hand the Union Government seeks to levy tax on the Indian importer by going beyond the text of the contract between the foreign shipping line and foreign exporter (for the purpose of identifying the Indian importer as the recipient of services), on the other hand, as far as the submissions on composite supply are concerned, the Union Government urges that the contracts must be viewed as s....