Bharat Oman Refineries LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the writ application was squarely covered by the Court's previous pronouncement in the case of Mohit Minerals Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Others. In that case, the Court had declared Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, and Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax dated June 28, 2017, as ultra vires the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for lacking legislative competency. Consequently, both notifications were declared unconstitutional. Based on this precedent, the Court allowed the writ application. The respondents were directed to sanction the refund and pay the IGST amount paid by the writ applicant pursuant to the now-declared ultra vires Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2017-IGST. The refund was to be processed and paid within six weeks from the receipt of the order.

Facts

The writ applicant, Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd., a government company, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents (Union of India and another) to grant a refund of IGST paid on ocean freight. The IGST was paid pursuant to Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2017-IGST (Rate) dated June 28, 2017. The petitioner sought the refund along with appropriate interest. The High Court had previously issued a notice to the respondents and scheduled the matter for hearing. The core of the dispute involved the levy of IGST on ocean freight for services provided by entities located in non-taxable territories for the transportation of goods from outside India to Indian customs stations.

Key Issues

1. Whether Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2017-IGST (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, and Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, are ultra vires the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and thus unconstitutional, concerning the levy of IGST on ocean freight for services provided by persons located in non-taxable territories for transportation of goods from outside India to customs stations in India. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the IGST paid was pursuant to the aforementioned notifications, which were later declared ultra vires by this Court. They sought a refund of the amount paid. Revenue's Contention: The learned standing counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the issue raised in this writ application is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Mohit Minerals (supra).