Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTSupreme Court Seeks IndiGo Parent’s Response on Customs Appeal Challenging IGST Relief

Supreme Court Seeks IndiGo Parent’s Response on Customs Appeal Challenging IGST Relief

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to InterGlobe Aviation, the parent company of IndiGo Airlines, in response to a plea filed by the Customs Department challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that had struck down the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on reimported aircraft engines and parts sent abroad for repairs and maintenance.

The Delhi High Court, in March this year, had quashed a portion of the government’s July 2021 notification which sought to impose IGST and cess on the cost of repairing reimported aircraft engines and components. The High Court had ruled that the notification—by adding the words “tax and cess” under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act—was unconstitutional and violated the statutory framework.

A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna heard brief arguments from Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman, who appeared for the Customs Department. He contended that the Delhi High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by declaring the law itself unconstitutional. According to the Customs Department, Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 independently authorizes the levy of duties on imported goods, and this provision was unaffected by the IGST notification being quashed. Therefore, InterGlobe Aviation, it argued, remained liable to pay the applicable tax.

Appearing for InterGlobe Aviation, senior counsel L. Lakshmikumaran opposed the Customs plea, arguing that the repair and maintenance of aircraft engines abroad had already been taxed as a service. Once such goods are reimported into India, they cannot again be subjected to IGST as if they were fresh imports of goods. He emphasized that taxing the same goods twice under different heads would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible under law.

The Delhi High Court, while ruling in favour of the airline earlier this year, had observed that the import of services can only be taxed under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act, and once a transaction is classified as a service, it cannot be recharacterized as an import of goods merely upon reentry into India. The court further termed the authorities’ argument of treating the repair and reimport process as two separate taxable events as “untenable,” noting that the nature of the transaction remained one of service and not goods.

The Supreme Court will now take up the matter on November 21 for further hearing.

Read More: BREAKING: Gold officially crosses $4,000/oz for the first time in History

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 – SRI SUJIT DAS AND ORS. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

This Article pertaining to FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 - SRI SUJIT DAS...

GST Notice Despite Advance Ruling: Gujarat High Court Restrains Final Order Without Its Permission

The Gujarat High Court has granted ad-interim protection to a company challenging proceedings under...

GST Demand Based On Return Scrutiny Requires Prior ASMT-10 Notice: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has set aside a GST demand proceeding involving alleged under-declaration...

Govt. Funding Doesn’t Establish Eligibility For 12% GST On Spinning Mill Construction: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Pune Bench, has upheld 18% GST...

More like this

FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 – SRI SUJIT DAS AND ORS. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

This Article pertaining to FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 - SRI SUJIT DAS...

GST Notice Despite Advance Ruling: Gujarat High Court Restrains Final Order Without Its Permission

The Gujarat High Court has granted ad-interim protection to a company challenging proceedings under...

GST Demand Based On Return Scrutiny Requires Prior ASMT-10 Notice: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has set aside a GST demand proceeding involving alleged under-declaration...