Separate GST Levy on CIF Transportation Services Unsustainable

Centax Editorial Board

May 26, 2026

• 2 min. read

Case Details: Midas Tankers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2026) 42 Centax 273 (Bom.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

- G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
- S/Shri Durgesh Nadkarni, Ashok Singh & D.B. Shroff, Sr. Adv., for the Petitioner.
- Ms Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. Govt. Pleader & Shri Aditya R. Deolekar, APP, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a shipping line registered under GST, was engaged in providing vessel services on a hire and freight basis. During the audit for the period 2021-22, objections were raised alleging that GST was payable on transportation services by treating India as the place of supply. A show-cause notice was thereafter issued proposing the levy of IGST, CGST, and SGST, along with the disallowance of the refund. The petitioner contended that the imports were on a CIF basis and customs duty, including freight, had already been discharged by the buyer on the composite value of goods. It was further argued that a separate levy of GST on freight would amount to double taxation and would be contrary to the concept of composite supply under the GST law. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that in CIF contracts, freight formed part of the composite supply of goods between the foreign exporter and the Indian importer, and once customs duty, including freight, had already been paid, a separate levy of GST on the petitioner for transportation services could not be sustained. It was observed that the Revenue had wrongly invoked the place-of-supply provisions to impose tax independently on the shipping line despite the transaction already suffering tax as part of the composite supply. The Court further held that the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., wherein the separate taxation of ocean freight in CIF contracts was held to be contrary to the scheme of GST law. Accordingly, the show cause notice and adjudication order were quashed, and a refund along with interest was directed to be granted to the petitioner.