Sandeep Patil vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Held
The Court held that sales by Duty Free Shops (DFS) to departing international passengers are considered exports and are not subject to GST. The Court reasoned that these sales occur within the customs area and are not cleared for home consumption. The taxable event for import duty, and by extension IGST, arises only when goods are cleared for home consumption by filing an ex-bond bill of entry under Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court also noted that effective from February 1, 2019, the supply of warehoused goods before clearance for home consumption is treated neither as a supply of goods nor services under Schedule-III of the CGST Act. For sales to arriving passengers, the Court found that such imports are exempt supplies under GST, and arriving passengers are not required to pay IGST due to exemptions read with duty-free allowances under the Baggage Rules. The Court further held that subjecting DFS to local taxes would increase prices, hinder competition, and negatively impact foreign trade and foreign exchange, thus negating the intent of Article 286 of the Constitution. The impugned order denying ITC refund and show cause notices were quashed and set aside. Regarding WP 1535/2019, the Court refrained from issuing a specific declaration on concession fees, stating that since the petitioner is entitled to an ITC refund, no prejudice would be caused if they paid GST on services from MIAL, took ITC, and then claimed a refund under Rule 89.
Facts
The petitioners, Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, operate duty-free shops (DFS) at Mumbai International Airport, located beyond India's customs frontiers. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax passed an order denying a refund of input tax credit (ITC) for sales of duty-free goods to departing passengers. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that these sales, along with sales to arriving passengers and receipt of input services, should not be subject to GST. They contended that the goods, whether imported or procured from SEZ units, remain within the customs area until cleared for home consumption. The sales to departing passengers are considered exports, and sales to arriving passengers are imports, both occurring within the customs area. The petitioner in WP 1535/2019 also sought a declaration that concession fees paid to Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) are not liable to GST.
Key Issues
1. Whether sales of goods by Duty Free Shops (DFS) to departing international passengers constitute an export and are thus outside the purview of GST, considering they occur within the customs area and are subject to specific customs procedures, as per Article 286 of the Constitution of India and the principles laid down in Indian Tourist Development Corp. Ltd v. CCT? (Mixed Law and Fact) 2. Whether sales of goods by DFS to arriving international passengers are considered imports and exempt from GST, particularly in light of customs regulations and the Baggage Rules? 3. Whether the consideration paid as concession fees by DFS to MIAL for the use of licensed premises is liable to GST? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that all transactions, including sales to departing and arriving passengers and the receipt of input services, take place within the customs area. Sales to departing passengers are exports, and sales to arriving passengers are imports, neither of which should attract GST. They relied on Article 286 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's ruling in Indian Tourist Development Corp. Ltd v. CCT. They also argued that the taxable event for import duty, and consequently for IGST, arises only when goods are cleared for home consumption by filing an ex-bond bill of entry, as per Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962. They cited Kiran Spinning Mills vs. Collector of Customs and Garden Silks Mills Ltd. Vs. Union Of India to support their contention on the taxable event. Revenue/State's Arguments: The Respondent-State and Union of India opposed the writ petitions, but their specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text.
Sections Cited
Section 5, Section 12, Section 46, Section 58A, Section 59, Section 60, Section 68, Article 286, Section 3, Schedule-III, Rule 89
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
appi-8/19 oocj : wp 1511/19 & 1535/19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2019 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 14 OF 2019 Sandeep Patil. ..Applicant/Petitioner. Versus Union of India and Others. ..Respondents. WITH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1511 OF 2019 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited & Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus Union of India and Others. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1535 OF 2019 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited & Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus Union of India and Others. ..Respondents. Advocates in Crim. Application No. 8 of 2019 : Mr. Annop U. Patil for the Applicant. Mrs. P. H. Kantharia for Respondent No.1 Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Kamat, Mr. Abhay Jadeja, Mr. Varun Satiya, Mr. Arun Unnikrishnan i/b Crawford Bayely & Co., for Respondent No.2 Advocates in OOCJ Writ Petitions : Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Kamat, Mr. Abhay Jadeja, Mr. Varun Satiya, Mr. Arun Unnikrishnan i/b Crawford Bayely & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. Jitendra Brijbhushan Mishra for Respondent No.
Mr V. A. So
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.