Dharmendra M. Jani Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are constitutionally valid but cannot levy tax under CGST and MGST Acts
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Dharmendra M. Jani v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 2031 of 2018 dated June 06, 2023] held that the provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the IGST Act”) are legal, valid and Constitutional. However, the said sections are confined to the provisions of the IGST Act only and the same cannot be made applicable for the levy of tax on services under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the MGST Act”).
Facts:
Mr. Dharmendra M Jani (“the Petitioner”) is a proprietor of M/s. Dynatex International. The Petitioner is engaged in providing marketing and promotion services to overseas customers.
Overseas customers are engaged in the manufacture and sale of goods. As per the agreement, the Petitioner solicits purchase orders for these overseas customers. The Indian purchaser, i.e., the importer, directly gives the order to the overseas customer. The sale invoice is raised in the name of the Indian purchaser and direct payment is made to the overseas customer. The overseas customer pays a commission to the Petitioner against the invoice issued by the Petitioner. The Petitioner receives this payment in India in convertible foreign exchange.
Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act is not only against the scheme of the CGST Act and IGST Act, but it also violates Articles 245, 246A, 269A and 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. The deeming fiction created under Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act does not establish any nexus with the taxing regime in India. Hence, Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act is ultra vires of the said act apart from being unconstitutional.
Hon’ble Justice Abhay Ahuja held that neither Section 13(8)(b) nor Section 8 (2) of the IGST Act are unconstitutional. Also, neither Section 13 (8) (b) nor Section 8 (2) of the IGST Act are ultra vires the IGST Act. Section 13 (8) (b) is also not ultra vires Section 9 of the CGST Act or the MGST Act. Section 13(8)(b) as well as Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are constitutionally valid and operative for all purposes.
Due to the difference of opinion between Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Abhay Ahuja, the Hon’ble Chief Justice directed the matter to the Hon’ble Justice G.S. Kulkarni.
Hon’ble Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are legal, valid and constitutional. Still, they cannot be used to levy tax on intermediary services under the CGST and MGST as no state law can impose or authorise the imposition of a tax on the supply of goods or services. Hence, these provisions of the IGST Act cannot be used to levy tax on intermediary services under the CGST and MGST Acts.
Issue:
Whether Section 13(8)(b) read with Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are constitutionally valid?
