GST on Ocean Freight: Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment and Its Implications
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Union of India vs. M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., addressing the validity of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) imposed on ocean freight transactions. This case holds critical importance for importers and businesses engaged in international trade, particularly those dealing with Cost-Insurance-Freight (CIF) contracts. The core question before the Court was whether an Indian importer could be subjected to IGST under a reverse charge mechanism on freight paid by a foreign exporter to a foreign shipping line.
The Union of India challenged the Gujarat High Court’s decision, which had ruled against the levy of IGST on ocean freight. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case has far-reaching implications for the interpretation of GST laws, taxation structures, and the principle of double taxation. The judgment clarifies the scope of taxation in cases involving international freight and reinforces the constitutional principles governing fiscal legislation.
Background of the Case
The Union of India imposed IGST on the ocean freight component under a reverse charge mechanism. This meant that Indian importers were required to pay tax on the freight charges paid by foreign exporters to foreign shipping lines. The tax was levied under Notifications 8/2017 and 10/2017, which brought ocean freight services under the ambit of GST.
M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., an importer, challenged this levy before the Gujarat High Court, arguing that the tax was unconstitutional as it led to double taxation. The High Court ruled in favor of the importer, holding that IGST could not be imposed on a transaction where the importer was not a direct recipient of the freight service. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the present case.
Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether an Indian importer, who does not contract directly with a foreign shipping line, can be considered the recipient of service under GST laws.
- Whether the imposition of IGST on ocean freight results in double taxation.
- Whether the government exceeded its statutory authority under the IGST Act by imposing a tax on importers for a service contracted by foreign entities.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioner (Union of India)
The Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, made the following key arguments:
1. Validity of Tax on Reverse Charge Basis
The government contended that Section 5(3) of the IGST Act allows taxation on a reverse charge basis for specified categories of supply, including ocean freight. According to the government, importers indirectly benefit from the transportation service, making them liable to pay IGST.
2. Leveling the Playing Field
The government justified the tax as a measure to bring parity between Indian and foreign shipping lines. Indian shipping companies were subject to GST, while foreign shipping lines operating under CIF contracts were not taxed, creating a disparity.
3. Prevention of Tax Avoidance
It was argued that exempting ocean freight from GST would lead to tax evasion and revenue loss. The government claimed that imposing IGST on importers would ensure compliance and prevent undue tax advantages for foreign entities.
Arguments Presented by the Respondent (M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.)
The respondent strongly opposed the levy, raising the following key points:
1. Importers Are Not the Recipients of Freight Services
The respondent argued that importers do not engage foreign shipping lines directly; instead, foreign exporters contract and pay for these services. Therefore, under GST laws, the recipient of a service must be the party making the payment, which in this case was the foreign exporter.
2. Double Taxation
The respondent pointed out that IGST was already being paid on the total value of imported goods, which includes ocean freight. Imposing an additional IGST on the freight component amounted to double taxation, which is not permissible under tax laws.
Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/gst-refund-delays-supreme-court-lowers-interest-rate-on-late-payments/
3. Lack of Legislative Authority
It was argued that Section 5(3) of the IGST Act does not authorize the government to arbitrarily designate importers as service recipients. The government had overstepped its authority by imposing a tax on entities that were not directly engaged in the freight transaction.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s decision, ruling in favor of M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The Court provided detailed reasoning for striking down the IGST on ocean freight:
1. Importers Are Not Recipients of Service
The Court ruled that under Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, a recipient of a service is the entity that pays for the service. In CIF transactions, the payment for ocean freight is made by the foreign exporter to a foreign shipping company. Since importers do not pay for these services, they cannot be classified as recipients under GST laws.
2. Double Taxation Is Impermissible
The Court acknowledged that importers already pay IGST on the total value of goods, including freight. Imposing IGST separately on freight would amount to double taxation, which goes against established taxation principles.
3. Exceeding Delegated Legislative Authority
The judgment emphasized that the government cannot use delegated legislation to impose taxes beyond what is permitted by the parent statute. Section 5(3) of the IGST Act does not empower the government to arbitrarily declare a party as a taxpayer when it is not a recipient of a service.
Implications of the Judgment
The ruling has several important consequences:
1. Relief for Importers
Importers dealing with CIF contracts will no longer be required to pay IGST on ocean freight, reducing their overall tax burden.
2. Clarity on GST Framework
The judgment provides clarity on the applicability of GST on international transactions, reinforcing the principle that taxes should not be imposed arbitrarily.
3. Impact on Government’s Tax Policies
The ruling limits the government’s ability to use notifications to expand the scope of taxation. It underscores the need for legislative amendments if the government intends to change the taxation structure.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. is a landmark ruling in taxation law. By striking down IGST on ocean freight, the Court has reinforced the principles of fair taxation and legislative authority. The decision safeguards importers from unjust tax burdens and ensures compliance with constitutional provisions governing indirect taxes.
Petitioner Name: Union of India.Respondent Name: M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Through Director.Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.Judgment Date: 19-05-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: union-of-india-vs-ms-mohit-minerals-p-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-19-05-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Income Tax Disputes
See all petitions in GST Law
See all petitions in Tax Evasion Cases
See all petitions in Banking Regulations
See all petitions in Tax Refund Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
