Sandeep Patil Flemingo Travel Retail Limited VS Union Of India

The criminal application No.8 of 2019 is submitted by the original petitioner for reviewing the order from 6th February 2019 in Criminal Public Interest Litigation No.14 of 2019, which we dismissed. The applicant-petitioner bases the review request heavily on an adjudication order by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Order-in-Original No. DC-E-636 / LTU-3 / Order of GST Refund Application / 2018-19 / B-355 Mumbai, dated 10th January 2019). This order denies a refund of the input tax credit (ITC) related to the sale of duty-free goods from duty-free shops (DFS) in the airport’s departure area. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1511 of 2019 have challenged this adjudication order, and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1535 of 2019 seek a declaration regarding the payment considerations to Mumbai.

The criminal application No. 8 of 2019 is filed by the original petitioner seeking a review of an order passed on 6th February 2019 in Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 14 of 2019, in which the PIL was dismissed. The petitioner places heavy reliance on an adjudication order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Order-in-Original No. DC-E-636 / LTU-3 / Order of GST Refund Application / 2018-19 / B-355 Mumbai) dated 10th January 2019, where the Deputy Commissioner denied a refund of the input tax credit (ITC) related to the sale of duty-free goods from duty-free shops (DFS) in the departure area of the airport. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1511 of 2019 are also challenging the same adjudication order, while the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1535 of 2019 seek a declaration that the payments made to Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL) under a concession agreement dated 17th February 2014 towards minimum guaranteed fees or concession fees for the rights and use of licensed premises of duty-free shops in the departure or arrival area of the international airport are not liable to GST and that MIAL is not entitled to collect GST from the petitioner. All these matters, including the criminal application and the two writ petitions, pertain to duty-free shops operated by Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, which is the applicant in the criminal application and the petitioner in the writ petitions. There is no dispute that these duty-free shops are located at Mumbai International Airport in the international arrival and departure areas, beyond the customs frontiers of India. The common issue raised in the writ petitions and the PIL is whether the duty-free shops at MIAL can be subjected to taxes or restrictions despite Article 286 of the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court’s ruling on duty-free shops at Bangalore International Airport in the case of Indian Tourist Development.

The criminal application No. 8 of 2019 was filed by the original petitioner to review our earlier dismissal of Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 14 of 2019. The applicant seeks review based on an adjudication order by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, which denied refund of input tax credit for duty free goods sold at Mumbai airport’s departure area. This issue is also central to two writ petitions, one challenging the same adjudication order and the other disputing GST liability on fees paid to Mumbai International Airport Ltd. for duty free shop concessions. All cases concern duty free shops operated by Flemingo Travel Retail Limited at Mumbai airport, beyond India’s customs frontiers. Key legal questions involve tax burdens on duty free shops under Article 286 of the Constitution, referencing precedents like the Bangalore International Airport case.

The criminal application No.8 of 2019 seeks review of our previous order dismissing Criminal Public Interest Litigation No.14 of 2019. The applicant relies heavily on an adjudication denying input tax credit for duty free goods sold at Mumbai International Airport. This issue is mirrored in two related writ petitions challenging the same adjudication and disputing GST liability on minimum guaranteed fees paid to Mumbai International Airport Ltd. All cases concern duty free shops operated by Flemingo Travel Retail Limited at Mumbai’s international airport, beyond India’s customs frontiers. The core legal question across petitions and PIL is whether these shops can be taxed despite constitutional and Supreme Court protections similar to those for Bangalore International Airport duty free shops.

The criminal application No. 8 of 2019 is filed by the original petitioner to review our dismissal of Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 14 of 2019 on February 6, 2019. The review hinges on an adjudication by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax denying input tax credit refunds for duty-free goods sold at Mumbai International Airport. This issue also forms the core of two related writ petitions. All cases concern duty-free shops operated by Flemingo Travel Retail Limited at Mumbai’s international airport, beyond India’s customs frontiers. Central to the legal debate is whether these shops should be taxed despite constitutional provisions and court precedents.

The criminal application No. 8 of 2019 is filed by the original petitioner seeking review of our previous order dated 6th February 2019 in Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 14 of 2019, which dismissed the PIL. The applicant relies heavily on an adjudication order by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 10th January 2019, denying input tax credit (ITC) refunds for duty free goods sold at Mumbai International Airport. Two related writ petitions challenge the same adjudication order and seek exemption from GST payments to Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL) under a concession agreement.

All cases involve duty free shops operated by Flemingo Travel Retail Limited at Mumbai’s international airport, beyond India’s customs frontiers. Central to the legal dispute is whether these shops can be taxed despite constitutional protections and Supreme Court precedent, particularly concerning duty free shops at Bangalore International Airport. The petitioner argues that goods sold at these shops are predominantly imported or warehoused, not subject to domestic GST laws.

The DFS operations involve sales to departing and arriving international passengers, under customs supervision to ensure compliance with export regulations. Sales occur within the customs area, supported by special warehouse licenses under the Customs Act. Goods purchased are not for domestic consumption but must leave India with the passenger. Post-July 2019, no GST is applicable to indigenous goods procured by the petitioner for international tourists, reinforcing their exemption under relevant tax provisions.

The matter involves complex interpretations of customs laws, GST applicability, and constitutional rights, shaping a significant legal challenge for duty free shop operators and tax authorities A like.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case law:

GST Case Law: