9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he business of manufacturing and sale of textime machinery and is duly registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "GST Act"). When the goods are imported by the petitioner company inside the country, bill of entry for home consumption is filed by the petitioner. 2.1 It was stated that at the time of clearance of the goods for home consumption, the petitioner company pays customs duty and tax under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax and other duties payable on the total value of goods Page which is the Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) value. 3. Section 5(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as "IGST") empowers the Government to specify the categories of supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as provided therein that in the circumstances mentioned therein, the IGST shall be collected at the rate of 10% of the CIF value. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Notification No. 8 of 2017 and No. 10 of 2017 both dated 28th June, 2017 read with Corrigendum dated 30th June, 2017 came up for consideration for their validity before this Court. This Court in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2020) 74 GSTR 134 struck down Entry No. 10 of 2017 - IGST Rate dated 28th June, 2017 as being ultra vires the provisions of the IGST Act as well as being unconstitutional. 5.1 The Supreme Court upheld the decision of this Court in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.(supra) in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of ocean freight declaring levy of GST on ocean freight as unconstitutional would not fall under any category of refund prescribed under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 and such claim would be outside the scope of and purview of such Section and petitioner can claim refund by way of suit or by way of a writ petition, would not sustain. Such a stand of the respondent is deprecated as the respondent is bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court and the same is required to be implemented in letter and spirit. The respondent No. 2, therefore, could not have rejected the refund claim of the petitioner on the ground that the same is outside the scope of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 inasmu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
