West INDIA Continental Oils And Fats PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary, (Revenue ) , Ministry Of Finance 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 sought to impose IGST on the impugned transactions, were unconstitutional. The Court's reasoning was based on the agreement of both parties that the matter was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court is presented with a matter squarely covered by a Supreme Court judgment, it must follow that precedent. 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., and West India Continental Oils & Fats Pvt.Ltd., challenging the levy 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 that the matter was indeed covered by the Apex Court's decision. One petition, Writ Petition No. 8275 of 2018 (KKalpena Industries Limited), was excluded from this group at the petitioner's request 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, 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 recent judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. Revenue's contention: The respondents, in fairness, agreed that the issue was covered by the Apex Court's judgment.