2022 Supreme(SC) 479
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT, VIKRAM NATH
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Through Director – Respondent
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. N. Venkataraman, ASG Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Jain, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv Mr. JK Mittal, Adv. Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Adv. Mr Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Ms. Vandana Mittal, Adv Ms. Aashna Suri, Adv Mr. Apurva Mehta, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Tushar Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajat Mittal, AOR Mr. Vikram Nankani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rohan Talwar, Adv. Mr. Abhinabh Garg, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Arvind P. Datar, sr. Adv. Mr. Harish Bindumadhavan, Adv. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Ms. Shrayshree Thyagarajan, Adv. Mr. Kumar Visalaksh, Adv. Mr. Harsh Shah, Adv. Ms. Ruchita Shah, Adv. Mr. Udit Jain, Adv. Mr. Arihant Tater, Adv. Mr. Archit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ajitesh Dayal Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vikas, AOR Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Ms. Padma Priya, Adv. Mr. Anchit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Suyash Jain, Adv. Ms. Saloni Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Zeeshan Ali, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AOR Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Avushka Singh, Adv. Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Adv. Ms. Rhea Dube, Adv. Ms. Rudrakshi Deo, Adv. Mr. Mizan Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR M/S. Ap & J Chambers, AOR Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Nainawati, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Adv. Mr. Sahil Parghi, Adv. Mr. Somesh Jain, Adv. Ms. Mounica Kasturi, Adv. Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Vinay Shraff, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kanodia, Adv. Mr. Prateek Gattani, Adv. Mr. Abhishek A. Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Pratyushprava Saha, Adv. Mr. Mahir Chablani, Adv. Mr. Rohit Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Kanika Sharma, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. Mr Sparsh Bhargava, Adv. Mr Ankit Sachdeva, Adv. Mr Vinayak Mathur, Adv. Ms. Anishka Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kumar Arya, Adv. Mr Rahul Jain, AOR
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. foundation of case: cif contracts and tax implications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. union government argues tax necessity on cif basis (Para 7 , 10) |
| 3. court considers arguments about legality and double taxation (Para 9 , 24 , 30) |
| 4. respondents argue contravening principles of tax law (Para 12 , 15 , 17) |
| 5. ratio decidendi established on limitations of delegations (Para 20 , 32 , 46) |
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
A Introduction
2. The respondents import non-coking coal from Indonesia, South Africa and the U.S. by ocean transport on a ‘Cost-Insurance-Freight’3[“CIF”] basis which is supplied to domestic industries. The goods are transported from a place outside India, up-to the customs station in India. The respondent pays customs duties on the import of coal, which includes the value of ocean freight. In the case of a CIF contract, the freight invoice is issued by the foreign shipping line to the foreign exporter, without the involvement of the importer. Ocean freight is paid by the importer only when goods are imported under a ‘Free-on-Board’4[“FOB”] contract.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
