2025 (7) TMI 1608 - HC - GST

Refund of Ocean freight borne by the petitioner for a period Feb-2018 onwards - HELD THAT - The issue is covered in terms of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Mohit Minerals vs. Union of India 2020 (1) TMI 974 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT which has been confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (5) TMI 968 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that The impugned levy imposed on the service aspect of the transaction is in violation of the principle of composite supply enshrined under Section 2(30) read with Section 8 of the CGST Act. Since the Indian importer is liable to pay IGST on the composite supply comprising of supply of goods and supply of services of transportation insurance etc. in a CIF contract a separate levy on the Indian importer for the supply of services by the shipping line would be in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act. . Since the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner in terms of the reference in two mentioned Writ Petitions following the view of the Gujarat High Court in Mohit Minerals s case which has been confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court it is inclined to allow these Writ Petitions at the stage of admission in the light of the order passed by this Court. Petition allowed.

Summary

The Madras High Court, through Justice C. Saravanan, disposed of seven Writ Petitions at admission stage by common order, with consent of counsel and without notice to the first respondent. The petitions challenge the impugned common order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Order-in-Appeal Nos.180-189/2021) concerning refund claims of Ocean freight borne by the petitioner from February 2018 onwards. The petitioner had earlier secured favorable orders from this Court for refund claims relating to February 2018 and July 2019 (W.P.(MD) Nos.9198 of 2023 and 19314 of 2024). The present petitions pertain to other periods between March 2018 and October 2019. Both parties conceded that the issue is governed by the decision in Mohit Minerals vs. Union of India, 2020 (3) GSTL 321 (Guj.), upheld by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., 2022 (61) GSTL 257 (SC). Following this binding precedent, the Court allowed the Writ Petitions at admission, stating: "Since the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner... I am inclined to allow these Writ Petitions at the stage of admission." The petitions were allowed with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.