Issue 1: Whether IGST can be levied on the ocean freight component under reverse charge mechanism when the importer has already paid IGST on CIF value? Views: No. The Court held that imposing IGST again on ocean freight under reverse charge would amount to double taxation, since the IGST is already paid on the entire CIF value, which includes the freight (from Mohit Minerals, Paras 80 to 87).

Issue 2: Whether the GST Council’s recommendations are binding on the Union and the States? Views: The Court held that the GST Council’s recommendations are not binding. They have persuasive value, and the Union and States are free to legislate, though cooperative federalism is expected (from Mohit Minerals, Paras 44 to 61).

Issue 3: Whether the notification requiring tax payment on ocean freight by the importer was ultra vires the CGST and IGST Acts? Views: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the notifications were ultra vires as there was no statutory sanction under the IGST Act to impose tax on the importer on a service (transportation) provided by a foreign shipping line to a foreign supplier (from Mohit Minerals, Para 88 to 95).

Issue 4: Whether the service provider and recipient in the transaction were both located outside India? Views: Yes. The Court found that in CIF contracts, the foreign exporter contracts with a foreign shipping line, and thus the entire transaction of ocean freight occurs outside India. Therefore, it does not qualify as an import of service under Section 13(9) of the IGST Act (from Mohit Minerals, Para 65 to 72).