Double taxation on the same transaction is impermissible, as established in the context of both C.I.F. and F.O.B. contracts.

ORDER :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

This batch of cases has been filed by the same petitioner. These cases raise a common question of law. In the circumstances, all these are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through virtual mode assisted by Ms. Maheswari Arika, learned counsel and Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents assisted by Sri Ravula Nagarjuna, learned Junior Standing Counsel.

3. The petitioner is involved in the business of power generation and sources coal and other goods from India and abroad. Whenever the petitioner sources coal from abroad, the transport of the coal and other goods, from outside India is done on C.I.F. basis or on F.O.B. basis. The petitioner, upon import of the said coal or other goods, pays tax under the I.G.S.T. Act on the value of the goods imported into India. Apart from this, the petitioner had also paid tax under I.G.S.T. Act, on a reverse charge mechanism basis, on the cost of freight in F.O.B. contracts. The petitioner, after such payments, had sought refund of the tax paid under the I.G.S.T. Act, on the freight charges in F.O.B.contracts.

4. The petitioner appears to have made such payments, even in cases where C.I.F. contracts were involved. After making such payments, the petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Central G.S.T. Division, Nellore, for refund of the tax paid under the I.G.S.T. Act, on the freight charges incurred in the transportation of the goods. The Assistant Commissioner, issued notices proposing to reject the refund tax. The petitioner, after receipt of these notices,had filed its replies and had also set forth its case by way of a personal hearing. The Assistant Commissioner, after completing the hearing of the matters, had rejected all the refund applications.

5. The details of the refund applications, orders of rejection and the Writ Petitions challenging these orders of rejection are set out in the table herein below.

6. As far as the orders of rejection relating to C.I.F. contracts are concerned, the said orders would have to be set aside, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & another Vs. M/s. Mohit MineralsPvt. Ltd., [2022 (5) TMI 968, (2022) 10 SCC 700]. To that extent, Writ Petition Nos.1268 of 2021 & 28209 of 2022 are allowed, to the extent of the refunds sought on C.I.F. contracts.

7. The case of the petitioner, before the Assistant Commissioner, was that the cost of fr