Supreme Court: In the case where the constitutionality of two Central Government notifications related to levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) was under scanner, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ has held that since the Indian importer is liable to pay IGST on the ‘composite supply’, comprising of supply of goods and supply of services of transportation, insurance, etc. in a CIF contract, a separate levy on the Indian importer for the ‘supply of services’ by the shipping line would be in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act.
The Court observed that,
“If Indian shipping lines continue to be taxed and not their competitors, namely, the foreign shipping lines, the margins arising out of taxation from GST would not create a level playing field and drive the Indian shipping lines out of business.”
Whether an Indian importer can be subject to the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on the component of ocean freight paid by the foreign seller to a foreign shipping line, on a reverse charge basis?
It was argued before the Court that the transaction between the foreign exporter and the respondents is already subject to IGST under Sections 5 of the IGST Act read with Sections 3(7) and 3(8) of the Customs Tariff Act as “supply of goods”. An additional levy of IGST on imported goods, that is on the supply of transportation service, by designating the importer as the recipient would amount to double taxation.
The Court explained that any Ocean Freight transaction involves three parties- the foreign exporter, the Indian importer and the shipping line. The first leg of the transaction involves a CIF contract, wherein the foreign exporter sells the goods to the Indian importer and the cost of insurance and freight are the responsibility of the foreign exporter. In other words, the foreign exporter is liable to ensure that the goods reach their place of destination and the Indian importer pays the transaction value to the exporter. The second leg of the transaction involves an agreement between the foreign exporter and the shipping line (whether foreign or Indian) for providing services for transport of goods to the destination, i.e., in the territory of India.
On the first leg of the transaction, between the foreign exporter and the Indian importer, the latter is liable to pay IGST on the transaction value of goods under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with Section 3(7) and 3(8) of the Customs Tariff Act. Although this transaction involves the provision of services such as insurance and freight it falls under the ambit of ‘composite supply’.
The Union Government had, however, submitted that the impugned levy is on the second leg of the transaction, which is a standalone contract between the foreign exporter and the foreign shipping line. Thus, the contract between the foreign exporter and the foreign shipping line- of which the Indian importer is not a party- cannot be deemed to be a part of ‘composite supply’. The Court, however, refused to agree with the submission and observed,
“The Union of India cannot be heard to urge arguments of convenience – treating the two legs of the transaction as connected when it seeks to identify the Indian importer as a recipient of services while on the other hand, treating the two legs of the transaction as independent when it seeks to tide over the statutory provisions governing composite supply.”
This observation was made in reference to the fact that the Court had agreed to Union of India’s submission to hold that when the place of supply of services is deemed to be the destination of goods under Section 13(9) of the IGST Act, the supply of services would necessarily be “made” to the Indian importer, who would then be considered as a “recipient” under the definition of Section 2(93)(c) of the CGST Act. The supply can thus be construed as being “made” to the Indian importer who becomes the recipient under Section 2(93)(c) of the CGST Act.
Stating that the Court is bound by the confines of the IGST and CGST Act to determine if this is a composite supply, the Court said that it would not be permissible to ignore the text of Section 8 of the CGST Act and treat the two transactions as standalone agreements.
The Court explained that the supply of service of transportation by the foreign shipper forms a part of the bundle of supplies between the foreign exporter and the Indian importer, on which the IGST is payable under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, Section 8 and Section 2(30) of the CGST Act. Hence, to levy the IGST on the supply of the service component of the transaction would contradict the principle enshrined in Section 8 and be in violation of the scheme of the GST legislation.
It was, hence, held that while the impugned notifications are validly issued under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the IGST Act, it would be in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act and the overall scheme of the GST legislation.
(i) The recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Union and States for the following reasons:
(a) The deletion of Article 279B and the inclusion of Article 279(1) by the Constitution Amendment Act 2016 indicates that the Parliament intended for the recommendations of the GST Council to only have a persuasive value, particularly when interpreted along with the objective of the GST regime to foster cooperative federalism and harmony between the constituent units;
(b) Neither does Article 279A begin with a non-obstante clause nor does Article 246A state that it is subject to the provisions of Article 279A. The Parliament and the State legislatures possess simultaneous power to legislate on GST. Article 246A does not envisage a repugnancy provision to resolve the inconsistencies between the Central and the State laws on GST. The ‘recommendations’ of the GST Council are the product of a collaborative dialogue involving the Union and States. They are recommendatory in nature. To regard them as binding edicts would disrupt fiscal federalism, where both the Union and the States are conferred equal power to legislate on GST. It is not imperative that one of the federal units must always possess a higher share in the power for the federal units to make decisions. Indian federalism is a dialogue between cooperative and uncooperative federalism where the federal units are at liberty to use different means of persuasion ranging from collaboration to contestation; and
(c) The Government while exercising its rule-making power under the provisions of the CGST Act and IGST Act is bound by the recommendations of the GST Council. However, that does not mean that all the recommendations of the GST Council made 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) read with Section 8 of the CGST Act. Since the Indian importer is liable to pay IGST on the ‘composite supply’, comprising of supply of goods and supply of services of transportation, insurance, etc. in a CIF contract, a separate levy on the Indian importer for the ‘supply of services’ by the shipping line would be in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act.
[Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 657, decided on 19.05.2022]
*Judgment by: Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud
For UOI: ASG N Venkataraman
For respondent: Senior Advocates V Sridharan, Harish Salve, Arvind Datar, Vikram Nankani and Advocate Uchit Sheth
For intervenors: Advocate Rajesh Kumar Gautam