Bhilosa Industries PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary (Revenue) And Ors.

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, to the extent they seek to impose IGST on the impugned transactions, are unconstitutional. The Court's reasoning was based on the agreement between the parties that the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent from the Apex Court, the High Court should follow it. 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 private limited 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. The petitions challenged the imposition of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on certain transactions. The petitioners argued that the issue was covered by a recent Supreme Court judgment. The respondents, including the Union of India, agreed with this contention. Writ Petition No. 8275 of 2018 (KKalpena Industries Limited) was excluded from this group of matters and listed for final hearing separately.

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, to the extent they impose IGST on the impugned transactions, are unconstitutional? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the issue raised in their petitions was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. Revenue's contention: The respondents, in fairness, agreed that the issue was covered by the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment.