The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of provisions of CGST/SGST/IGST Acts in the context of duty free shops, specifically regarding the liability for tax on goods supplied to and from duty free shops.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Atin Krishna petitioner-in-person, Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India-respondent no.1 Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the State-respondent no.2 and Sri Sameer Rohatgi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. This petition is filed in public interest seeking to ensure that the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "CGST Act") Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "SGST Act") and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "IGST Act") are implemented in proper manner qua the duty free shops (hereinafter referred to as "DFS") operated at Chaudhary Charan Singh International Airport, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Airport") by respondent no.3.

3. The petitioner submitted that due to the misinterpretation of the provisions of CGST/SGST/IGST Acts, (GST Act), the public exchequer is being made to suffer huge financial loss and therefore, it is necessary in public interest that this Court provides true and correct interpretation of the applicable provisions of the aforesaid enactments so as to ensure that the revenue loss to the public exchequer is forthwith prevented.

4. The petitioner alleged that the respondent no.3 herein, has been operating at the arrival and departure termination of Airport since 2004 and the operations of these shops are governed in accordance with the provisions of Customs Act 1962. The respondent no.3 is required to obtain registration of its business under CGST Act and SGST Act and is allotted respective GSTIN numbers and owing to registration obtained under the respective Acts, the activity undertaken by the respondent no.3 also attracts the provisions of GST Act. However, the provisions of these enactments are being mis-interpreted and the DFS operated by the respondent no.3 are presently enjoying various exemptions causing severe loss of revenue to the public exchequer.

5. The contention of the petitioner is as under:-

(i) The respondent no.3 is liable to pay IGST on the goods imported into the territory of India, which it is not doing.

(ii) Despite the DFS operated by the respondent no.3 being in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the goods were sold to the International passengers without charging the applicable taxes under CGST and SGST Acts. The petitioner submitted that the requirement to charge applicable CGST and SGST on the sale of goods at the DFS of the respondent no.3 was prior to Amendment of GST Act i.e. upto 31st January, 2019.

(iii) The respondent no.3 is incorrectly permitted to claim refund of accumulated input tax credit of GST paid on service of renting of immovable property by AAI and procurement of domestic goods and services. This refund is being granted under the grounds that the sale made to the International passengers at the departure terminal DFS is exports of goods and hence zero-rated. The sale invoice issued to the International passengers is incorrectly being considered as proof of exports of goods.

6. The petitioner submitted that a transaction must suffer IGST the moment the supply of goods cross the territorial waters of India. Therefore, the supply of imported goods to respondent no.3 needs to be subjected to tax under Section 5 of the IGST Act. He further submitted that from the standpoint of Section 8 (1) of the IGST Act, the sale made to International passengers at the arrival terminal DFS of the respondent no.3 should be considered as intra state supply of goods and accordingly, such sale shall attract applicable CGST and SGST under Section 9 (1) of the CGST Act and SGST Act upto 31st January, 2019 and that the activity undertaken from the departure terminal DFS operated by the respondent no.3 is not an export of goods under GST Act as the essential ingredients to qualify for export is nothing being satisfied by the respondent no.3. The grounds mentioned in the writ petition is based upon a reported