The Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court which has ruled in favour of taxpayer stating that IGST is not payable on ocean freight in CIF value of import. In CIF – Cost Insurance Freight basis import the freight cost is already included in the import value. The importer pays customs duty which consist of IGST component. Since the IGST is paid once at import the taxpayer is not required to pay against IGST under RCM as per notification no.8/2017-Integrated Tax dated 28.06.2017.
The revenue appealed against the high court order at Supreme Court. The Supreme court has ruled that IGST is not payable on CIF import.
Supreme court recently decided that CBIC Notification imposing IGST on Importers is in Violation of GST Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the levy of IGST on the importers as per the notifications of the CBIC is in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act.
The bench was considering an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court order allowing a petition by Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd challenged vires of the CBIC notification. The petition has first paid the tax under IGST Act on the entire value of imports (inclusive of the ocean freight), the petitioner cannot be asked to pay tax on the ocean freight all over again under a different notification.
The Apex Court observed that “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.”
In a CIF contract, the supply of goods is accompanied by the supply of services of transportation and insurance, the responsibility for which lies on the seller (the foreign exporter in this case). 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. 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. Based on this reason, we are of the opinion 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,” the Court said.
“We are in agreement with the High Court to the extent that a tax on the supply of a service, which has already been included by the legislation as a tax on the composite supply of goods, cannot be allowed,” the Court added.
Concluding the order, the Apex Court held that “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.
Share this content: