Singapore Airlines Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition filed by Singapore Airlines Ltd. challenging an order dated 4 February 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai Central, confirming an IGST demand of Rs.24,41,60,160/- under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, together with an equal penalty and applicable interest. The dispute concerned services provided by Computerized Reservation System (CRS) companies. The petitioner contended that agreements for the CRS services had been entered into directly with the CRS companies and that the petitioner, being the operator of Singapore Airlines in India and a distinct legal entity, was neither the recipient of those services nor the person who made payment to the CRS companies.
The petitioner relied upon the CESTAT decisions in British Airways v. Commissioner (Adjn.), Central Excise, Delhi and Singapore Airlines v. Commissioner Service Tax, Mumbai-I, contending that it could not be saddled with IGST liability when it was not the recipient of the services. The Revenue opposed the petition, arguing that the transaction took place at the petitioner’s office in India and that the order-in-original was appealable, making the writ petition not maintainable.
The High Court observed that the core question requiring determination was whether the petitioner fell within the definition of “Recipient” so as to attract IGST liability in respect of the transaction. It further observed that if the petitioner was neither the recipient nor the payer for the CRS services, the question arose whether any service tax liability could be fastened upon it. The Court found that the issue required deeper consideration and also involved the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court issued notice to the respondents, kept the question of maintainability of the writ petition open and granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) till the next date. The matter was directed to be listed on 10 August 2026.
Cases Discussed
- British Airways v. Commissioner (Adjn.), Central Excise, Delhi (CESTAT, New Delhi); 2014 (36) S.T.R. 598 (Tri.-Del.) — Relied upon by the petitioner on the issue of liability concerning CRS services and identification of the recipient of service.
- Singapore Airlines v. Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT, Mumbai); Service Tax Appeal No. 87984 of 2013; Decision Date: 26/09/2022 — Relied upon by the petitioner to contend that the Indian office could not be subjected to tax where it had not been identified as the recipient of CRS services.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This Petition assails the Order dated 4th February 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and C. Ex. Mumbai Central, whereby the demand of IGST of Rs.24,41,60,160/- was confirmed under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, imposing equal amount of penalty along with the applicable interest thereon.
3. The arguments advanced by Mr. Darius Shroff, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, reduced to their essence, is to the effect that, the services provided by the Computerized Reservation System (‘CRS’ for short) Companies were pursuant to the Agreement entered into directly by the CRS.
4. The Petitioner is the Operator of Singapore Airlines in India, being a distinct legal entity, is neither the recipient of service nor has paid the amount directly to CRS Companies. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner’s case is that the demand of IGST, of Rs.24,41,60,160/- would not be maintainable under Section 74(2) of the CGST Act.
5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Shroff has placed reliance on the decision of the Customs and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘CESTAT’ for short) in the case of British Airways v. Commissioner (Adjn.), Central Excise, Delhi (New Delhi – CESTAT); as well as decision in the case of Singapore Airlines v. Commissioner Service Tax, Mumbai-I, dated 26 September 2022 to submit that the Petitioner is not liable to pay the IGST as it is not the recipient of services. The learned Senior Counsel further submit that although these decisions supports the case of the Petitioner, yet, only to keep the case alive, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner which has culminated into the impugned Order. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the impugned Order is without jurisdiction and has prayed for ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c).
6. Resisting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr Mishra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, submitted that the transaction did take place in the office of the Petitioner, in India, and therefore, the Petitioner cannot shy away from the IGST liability under the law. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel that the Order-in-Original is appealable in nature and therefore, prays for dismissal of the Petition on the plea of maintainability of the same.
7. After hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel for both sides, we are of the view that the core issue that arises for determination in this case is as to whether, the Petitioner Company would come within the definition of “Recipient”, for being saddled with the liability of the IGST levied on the transaction in question. In other words, if the Petitioner is neither the Recipient nor the payer of such service provided by the CRS whether, it could be fastened with any service tax liability for such transaction. After a cursory reading of the impugned Order, we find that the said issue calls for deeper consideration by this Court.
8. The question as formulated by this Court also pertains to the question of jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority and therefore, even though there is an alternative remedy available to the Petitioner, yet, we are of the view that the said issue needs to be examined by this Court. As such, we pass the following Order :
ORDER
(i) Issue notice to the Respondents returnable on 10th August 2026.
(ii) The Respondents have tendered a reply which is taken on record.
(iii) List the matter again on on 10th August 2026.
(iv) The question of maintainability of the Writ Petition is kept open and shall be considered on the next date.
(v) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) is granted till the next date.
Notes:
1 2014 (36) S.T.R. 598 (Tri.-Del.)
