Full News
Supreme Court upholds Gujarat HC: No IGST on ocean freight for importers
Supreme Court upholds Gujarat HC: No IGST on ocean freight for importers
This case involves Ozone Procon Pvt. Ltd. challenging a government notification that required importers to pay Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism, even when IGST was already paid as part of customs duty. The Gujarat High Court quashed the tax demand, relying on its earlier decision in Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor of the importer, setting aside the tax demand and clarifying that such double taxation is not permissible under the IGST Act.
Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here
Case Name
Ozone Procon Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (High Court of Gujarat)
R/Special Civil Application No. 22433 of 2019
Date: 16th June 2022
Key Takeaways
- No Double Taxation on Ocean Freight: Importers cannot be asked to pay IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge if IGST is already paid as part of customs duty.
- Entry No. 10 of Notification Dated 28.06.2017 Quashed: The court found this entry ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the IGST Act, 2017.
- Supreme Court Endorsement: The Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s view, making this a binding precedent.
- Relief for Importers: Importers who paid IGST as part of customs duty are not liable to pay IGST again on ocean freight.
Issue
Is it lawful for the government to demand IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge from importers, when IGST has already been paid as part of customs duty on a CIF (Cost, Insurance, Freight) basis?
Facts
- Who: Ozone Procon Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) is an importer of edible grade crude oil.
- What: The company imports goods on a CIF basis, meaning the foreign exporter arranges and pays for transportation and insurance up to the Indian port.
- How: When the goods arrive, Ozone Procon pays customs duty and IGST on the total value, which already includes the cost of freight.
- Dispute: The tax authorities issued a notice (dated 29.08.2019) demanding IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge, citing Entry No. 10 of a notification dated 28.06.2017.
- Challenge: Ozone Procon challenged this demand, arguing it amounted to double taxation.
Arguments
Petitioner (Ozone Procon Pvt. Ltd.)
- Already paid IGST as part of customs duty on the full CIF value (which includes ocean freight).
- The demand for IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge is double taxation and not supported by the IGST Act.
- Relied on the Gujarat High Court’s earlier decision in Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India and ors, which quashed a similar demand.
Respondent (Union of India)
- Argued that the notification (Entry No. 10, dated 28.06.2017) validly required importers to pay IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge.
Key Legal Precedents
- Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India and ors (Special Civil Application No. 726 of 2018):
- The Gujarat High Court held that Entry No. 10 of the notification dated 28.06.2017 was ultra vires the IGST Act, 2017, and quashed the demand for IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge.
- Union of India and others vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 1390 of 2022):
- The Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s decision, confirming that such a demand was not permissible under the law.
- Section 5(3) of the IGST Act, 2017:
- This section allows the government to specify categories of supply and persons liable to pay tax under reverse charge, but the court found the notification exceeded this authority in this context.
Judgement
- The Gujarat High Court quashed the tax demand and notice dated 29.08.2019 against Ozone Procon Pvt. Ltd.
- The court relied on its earlier decision in Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India and ors, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.
- The court held that the proceedings initiated by the tax authorities, based on Entry No. 10 of the notification dated 28.06.2017, were not valid.
- The petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was set aside.
FAQs
Q1: What is “ocean freight” in this context?
A: Ocean freight refers to the cost of transporting goods by sea from a foreign country to India. In CIF contracts, this cost is paid by the exporter and included in the value of goods for customs purposes.
Q2: What is the “reverse charge mechanism”?
A: Under the reverse charge mechanism, the recipient of certain services (here, the importer) is required to pay tax instead of the supplier.
Q3: Why was the demand for IGST on ocean freight considered double taxation?
A: Because IGST was already paid as part of the customs duty on the total value of imported goods (which includes freight), demanding IGST again on the same freight component would amount to taxing it twice.
Q4: What does “ultra vires” mean?
A: “Ultra vires” means “beyond the powers.” The court found that the government’s notification exceeded the authority granted by the IGST Act.
Q5: What is the impact of this judgment?
A: Importers are not required to pay IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge if they have already paid IGST as part of customs duty on the CIF value. This provides significant relief to importers and clarifies the law.
×
