Frigorifico Allan PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA Thru The Secretary (Revenue) , Ministry Of Finance , Dept. Of Revenue And Anr

Held

The Court held that Serial No. 10 of Notification 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017, read with Section 5(3) of the IGST Act, and Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017, along with its corrigendum dated 30th June 2017, are unconstitutional to the extent they seek to impose IGST on the impugned transactions. The Court's reasoning was based on the agreement of both parties that the issue was covered by the Apex Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. through Director. The ratio decidendi is that if a transaction is already covered by a specific notification or provision that does not levy IGST, then subsequent notifications or provisions attempting to impose it in an unconstitutional manner are liable to be struck down. The Court directed that wherever a refund is payable, it shall be paid within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order, with applicable interest in accordance with law. Writ Petition No. 8275 of 2018 was excluded from this group.

Facts

These writ petitions were filed by various companies, including Cargill India Private Limited, Bhilosa Industries Pvt. Ltd., Frigorifico Allan Pvt. Ltd., West India Continental Oils & Fats Pvt.Ltd., and Liberty Oil Mills Limited, challenging certain aspects of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The core of the dispute revolved around the imposition of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on specific transactions. The petitioners argued that the relevant notifications and provisions of the IGST Act were unconstitutional. The respondents were the Union of India and other relevant authorities. One petition, Writ Petition No. 8275 of 2018 (KKalpena Industries Limited), was excluded from this group and listed for a separate hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether Serial No. 10 of Notification 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017, read with Section 5(3) of the IGST Act, and Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017, along with its corrigendum dated 30th June 2017, are unconstitutional to the extent they impose IGST on the impugned transactions? Petitioners' Contention: The petitioners argued that the aforementioned notifications and statutory provisions were unconstitutional as they sought to impose IGST on the impugned transactions. They relied on the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. through Director. Respondents' Contention: The counsel for the respondents, in fairness, agreed that the issue raised in these petitions was squarely covered by the Apex Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. through Director.