Cargill INDIA Private LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA , Thru The Secretary, Revenue , Ministry Of Finace , 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 matter was squarely covered by the Apex Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. The ratio decidendi is that if a transaction is already subjected to a tax under a specific provision, imposing another tax on the same transaction through a notification under a different provision, especially when it leads to unconstitutionality, is impermissible. The Court directed that wherever refund is payable, it shall be paid within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order, with applicable interest.

Facts

Multiple petitioners, including Cargill India Private Limited, Bhilosa Industries Pvt. Ltd., KKalpena Industries Limited, Frigorifico Allan Pvt. Ltd., West India Continental Oils & Fats Pvt.Ltd., and Liberty Oil Mills Limited, filed writ petitions challenging the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on certain transactions. The respondents are the Union of India and other authorities. The specific tax periods are not detailed in the provided text. The core of the challenge pertains to the constitutional validity of the notifications and provisions imposing IGST on the impugned transactions. The procedural history indicates these matters were heard together, with one petition (Writ Petition No. 8275 of 2018) being excluded for separate listing.

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, including its corrigendum dated 30th June 2017, are unconstitutional to the extent they impose IGST on the impugned transactions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the issue raised in their petitions is squarely covered by the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. Revenue's contention: Counsel for the respondents, in fairness, agreed that the issue is covered by the Apex Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd.