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
