Levy and collection

Section 5 — Levy and collection

BLOCK 2 — PRE-GST COUNTERPART / PARALLEL PROVISIONS / OPERATIVE RULES

BLOCK 3 — COMMENTARY

1. Statutory Architecture

2. Historical Context

Pre-GST inter-State trade in goods bore Central Sales Tax (CST) under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, charged at 2% (against C-form) or full local-VAT rate (without C-form). CST was the single biggest economic distortion of the pre-GST regime — it broke the credit chain because the importing State gave no credit for CST paid in the originating State. CST therefore embedded a permanent tax cost in inter-State trade, distorting location decisions and supply chains.

Inter-State trade in services had no comparable statutory framework. Service-tax under the Finance Act 1994 was a Union levy applied India-wide without inter-State apportionment. Cross-border services were brought to charge through the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (POPS Rules) — a rules-only architecture. There was no inter-State 'tax' on services — the service-tax revenue accrued wholly to the Union.

Import of goods bore basic customs duty (BCD) plus countervailing duty (CVD) at the local-excise rate plus Special Additional Duty (SAD) at 4% — these latter two replicating the impact of domestic indirect taxes on imports. CVD and SAD were eligible for input credit by manufacturers and traders respectively, but the credit chain was fragmented across central excise, service-tax and State VAT.

Section 5 IGST unifies this fragmented landscape. Sub-section (1) levies IGST on all inter-State supplies — eliminating CST. The proviso to sub-section (1) levies IGST on imports as a duty of customs collected at customs clearance — replacing CVD/SAD. Sub-section (2) defers the charge on petroleum products (still outside GST as on the appointed-day) to a future Council-recommended date — not yet notified. Sub-section (3) creates the reverse-charge mechanism for notified categories. Sub-section (4) — substituted by the IGST Amendment Act 2018 — creates the narrower RCM for notified class of registered persons receiving from unregistered suppliers. Sub-section (5) creates the e-commerce operator deemed-supplier framework for notified services.

The Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 inserted Article 246A and Article 269A to provide the constitutional foundation. Article 246A(2) confers exclusive Parliamentary competence over inter-State trade or commerce. Article 269A(1) provides that IGST shall be levied and collected by the Government of India and apportioned between the Union and the States in such manner as Parliament may by law provide on the recommendations of the Council. Section 5 IGST is the statutory operationalisation of this constitutional architecture.

The most significant judicial intervention has been Mohit Minerals (2022) — the Constitution-Bench-grade ruling on ocean-freight IGST under sub-sections (3)/(4). The Court struck down Notifications 8/2017-IT(R) and 10/2017-IT(R) to the extent they imposed RCM-IGST on ocean freight component of CIF imports, on the grounds that (a) freight is part of the composite supply of imported goods (already taxed under s. 5(1) proviso), and (b) GST Council recommendations are persuasive, not binding. Mohit Minerals continues to shape every dispute involving RCM scope and GST Council legislative architecture.

The IGST Amendment Act 2018 (Act 32 of 2018) substituted sub-section (4) w.e.f. 01.02.2019. The pre-amendment sub-section (4) applied to ALL inward supplies by ANY registered person from ANY unregistered supplier — an unworkable cash-flow burden that was kept in suspension since 13 October 2017 by a series of postponements through Notifications 38/2017-CT and successors. The substituted sub-section (4) is narrower — applies only to notified class of registered persons receiving notified categories of supplies from unregistered suppliers. As of date, the principal notification under the substituted sub-section (4) is Notification 7/2019-CT(R) for real-estate promoters (Council decision of 19th meeting).

3. Judicial Evolution

The IGST charging section is the most-litigated provision in the IGST Act. Disputes turn on scope of RCM (Mohit Minerals); composite-supply analysis (Imagic Creative, L&T); ITC chain (VKC Footsteps, Safari Retreats); finality of self-assessment (Bharti Airtel); valuation under s. 15 CGST; and constitutional anchor (AIFTP, ALFSC). The case-law architecture is dense:

Union of India v Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd — (2022) 10 SCC 700 [Supreme Court — 3-Judge Bench (Constitution Bench questions)]

Brief Facts: Importers of coal on CIF basis were held liable under Notification Nos. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) and 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) to pay IGST on ocean freight component under reverse charge under s. 5(3)/(4) of the IGST Act. Importers challenged the levy as ultra vires the charging section and contended that IGST had already been paid on CIF value (which included freight) at the time of import under s. 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act.

Issue: Whether IGST could be levied separately on the ocean freight component of CIF imports when the entire CIF value (inclusive of freight) had suffered IGST under s. 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act; and whether GST Council recommendations are binding on the Union and States.

HELD: Levy struck down. The Court held that the impugned notification offended the principle of 'composite supply' under s. 8 of the CGST Act because ocean freight in CIF imports is part of the composite supply of imported goods and cannot be artificially severed. Further, the GST Council's recommendations are recommendatory, not binding, on the Union and States — both Parliament and State legislatures have simultaneous legislative power under Article 246A.

"The recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Union and the States. The recommendations only have a persuasive value. To regard them as binding would disrupt fiscal federalism, where both the Union and the States are conferred equal power to legislate on GST."

Relevance: Foundational authority on the IGST charging section, the limits of reverse-charge notifications under s. 5(3)/(4), and the constitutional architecture of the GST Council. Repeatedly cited in RCM, place-of-supply, and composite-supply disputes.

Union of India v VKC Footsteps India Pvt Ltd — (2022) 2 SCC 603 [Supreme Court — 2-Judge Bench]

Brief Facts: Manufacturer-exporters with inverted duty structure (input GST > output GST) sought refund of accumulated input tax credit under s. 54(3) read with Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules. Rule 89(5) permitted refund of unutilised ITC only on 'inputs' (goods), excluding 'input services'. Gujarat HC struck down the exclusion; Madras HC upheld it. SC heard the conflict.

Issue: Whether Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules — by restricting inverted-duty refund to inputs (goods) and excluding input services — is ultra vires s. 54(3) of the CGST Act.

HELD: Rule 89(5) upheld. The Court held that s. 54(3) is enabling, not mandatory, and the legislative policy choice to confine inverted-duty refund to inputs (goods) is constitutionally permissible. The refund of unutilised ITC is not a constitutional right; it is a statutory concession that the legislature can shape and limit. The Court urged the GST Council to revisit the formula but did not strike down the rule.

"Refund of unutilised ITC is a statutory entitlement, not a constitutional right. The legislature in its wisdom may choose to grant the entitlement with such conditions and limitations as it thinks fit. We cannot rewrite the formula by judicial fiat."

Relevance: Definitive authority on inverted-duty refund mechanics, the policy/discretion distinction in refund jurisprudence, and the standard of review for delegated legislation under GST.

Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax v Safari Retreats Pvt Ltd — (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2966 [Supreme Court — 2-Judge Bench]

Brief Facts: Safari Retreats constructed a shopping mall and leased it out — output supply was taxable rental. It sought ITC on construction goods/services (cement, steel, works contract). Revenue invoked s. 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act to deny ITC on inputs/input services used in construction of immovable property other than plant or machinery 'on his own account'. Orissa HC read down s. 17(5)(d) for leasing-out cases; SC heard the appeal.

Issue: Whether s. 17(5)(d) bars ITC on construction inputs/services where the immovable property constructed is itself used to make taxable outward supplies (here, rental); and what is the scope of the 'plant or machinery' exclusion.

HELD: ITC permitted in a 'functionality test' framework. The Court held that whether a building qualifies as 'plant' within the 'plant or machinery' exclusion is a fact-specific functional inquiry — if the building itself is the means by which the registered person makes outward taxable supplies (e.g., a hotel, a mall, a warehouse), it can qualify as plant and ITC on its construction is admissible. Matter remitted for application of functionality test.

"Whether a particular building qualifies as a plant within the meaning of the expression 'plant or machinery' is a question of fact that has to be determined keeping in mind the business of the registered person and the role that building plays in that business."

Relevance: Critical reset on ITC architecture for real-estate / leasing / hospitality. Important for IGST place-of-supply (immovable property) disputes where ITC architecture interacts with location-of-supply rules under s. 12(3) of the IGST Act.

Union of India v Bharti Airtel Ltd — (2022) 4 SCC 328 [Supreme Court — 2-Judge Bench]

Brief Facts: Bharti Airtel claimed it had under-reported ITC in GSTR-3B for July-Sept 2017 (the early GST months when GSTR-2A was not operational) and sought rectification of GSTR-3B for those months to correct the under-claim. Delhi HC permitted rectification; Revenue appealed to SC.

Issue: Whether GSTR-3B for past periods can be rectified to correct an under-claim of ITC where the registered person's books would support the correction but GSTN does not allow retrospective edit.

HELD: Rectification not permitted. The Court held that the GST return-filing regime is self-assessed; the registered person is duty-bound to verify entitlements at the time of filing and cannot, after the fact, claim that GSTR-2A was not available. ITC is a statutory entitlement that must be claimed within the period prescribed under s. 16(4) and not through retrospective rectification.

"GST is a self-assessment regime. The registered person bears the burden of correctly computing and reporting tax liability at the time of filing the return. The unavailability of GSTR-2A does not absolve the assessee of this duty."

Relevance: Substance-over-form authority on self-assessment, the finality of GSTR-3B, and limits on retrospective rectification — critical for place-of-supply disputes where mis-classification may be alleged years later.

Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt Ltd v Union of India — (2021) 15 SCC 667 [Supreme Court — 3-Judge Bench]

Brief Facts: Petitioner, a distributor of lottery tickets, challenged the levy of GST on lottery on the ground that lottery is an 'actionable claim' which is not 'goods' for GST purposes (the actionable-claim exclusion in Schedule III) and therefore the constitutional power to tax goods is missing.

Issue: Whether lottery is 'goods' under the CGST/IGST Acts; whether the inclusion of lottery as a taxable actionable claim is constitutional; and whether the valuation under s. 15 (face value of lottery ticket) is permissible.

HELD: Levy upheld. The Court held that the definition of 'goods' under s. 2(52) of the CGST Act is wide enough to include actionable claims, and the inclusion of lottery within taxable actionable claims is a legislative policy choice within Parliament's competence. Valuation at face value is not arbitrary because the prize component is a contingent payout, not a deduction.

"The definition of 'goods' in the CGST Act, by including actionable claims, is a deliberate expansion of the historical concept and is constitutionally permissible. Lottery, being one of the three specified actionable claims rendered taxable, is liable to GST at face value."

Relevance: Constitutional anchor for the breadth of 'goods' under GST and for the legislative discretion in designing valuation rules. Foundational for actionable-claim/derivative-instrument supply disputes.

Imagic Creative Pvt Ltd v Commercial Taxes Officer — (2008) 2 SCC 614 [Supreme Court — 2-Judge Bench]

Brief Facts: Advertising agency designed concepts for clients and supplied printed brochures/visiting cards. Question was whether the value of services (creative design) embedded in the printed material could be subjected to VAT as part of the sale value of the printed material.

Issue: Whether VAT and service-tax are mutually exclusive in a composite transaction; whether the service component of a composite supply can be carved out for service-tax purposes free of VAT.

HELD: Service-tax and VAT are mutually exclusive on the same transaction value. In a composite transaction, the service value must be excluded for VAT purposes (and vice versa), provided the contract clearly identifies the consideration for each. Aspects-of-supply doctrine applied.

"Service-tax and sales-tax operate in distinct constitutional fields and cannot both be levied on the same value. In a composite supply, the value attributable to services is to be excluded for VAT and vice versa."

Relevance: Pre-GST framework for composite-supply taxation. Now subsumed under s. 8 CGST Act and the place-of-supply architecture under ss. 12/13 IGST Act — the underlying principle of severing service value from goods value survives in the principal-supply analysis.

Larsen & Toubro Ltd v State of Karnataka — (2014) 1 SCC 708 [Supreme Court — 3-Judge Bench]

Brief Facts: Question of whether a works-contract for construction of an apartment complex involves a 'deemed sale' of goods (Article 366(29A)(b)) at every stage of construction or only on transfer of the completed unit. Builders had not paid VAT on goods element in tripartite arrangements.

Issue: What is the taxable event in a works-contract; whether goods can be deemed to be sold incrementally during construction; and what is the constitutional architecture of Art 366(29A)(b).

HELD: Goods incorporated in a building become the buyer's property by the doctrine of accretion at the point of incorporation. Each incorporation is a 'deemed sale' that can be taxed. The works-contract is a composite contract that must be unpacked into its goods and services components for tax purposes — the goods component is taxable as deemed sale; the services component as service-tax (now GST as service).

"On the principle of accretion, the goods incorporated in a building become the property of the buyer at the point of incorporation. Each such incorporation amounts to a deemed sale within the meaning of Article 366(29A)(b)."

Relevance: Foundational works-contract authority — directly informs IGST place-of-supply for works-contract services under s. 12(3) (location of immovable property) and the composite-supply treatment under s. 8 of the CGST Act.

4. Circulars and Notifications

Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 — IGST rate schedule for goods — 0%, 5%, 12%, 18%, 28% slabs

The principal rate notification for goods under s. 5(1) IGST. Six schedules covering NIL rate (Schedule I exempt goods), 2.5% (1.25% in CGST equivalent), 6%, 9%, 14% and 1.5% (for diamonds). Amended multiple times — the most consequential recent amendments include rate rationalisation for textiles, footwear, EVs, and renewable energy components. Operative rate for any inter-State supply of goods flows from this notification + amendments.

Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 — IGST rate schedule for services — services rate notification

The principal rate notification for services under s. 5(1) IGST. Specifies service rates with detailed sub-entries — services taxed at 5%, 12%, 18% or 28% with NIL rate exempt list. Includes special provisions for construction services (1%/5% for affordable/non-affordable residential, subject to conditions), restaurant services (5% without ITC), transportation (various rates), financial services (18%), insurance, banking, telecom, etc. Amended extensively since 2017.

Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 — RCM on inter-State services under s. 5(3) IGST

The principal RCM-on-services notification. Specifies services where tax payable on RCM by recipient — Goods Transport Agency (5% with ITC restriction or 12% with ITC), legal services by individual advocate / firm of advocates, sponsorship services, arbitration services, services provided by Government / local authority (except specified excluded services), services from director, services from insurance agents, services from recovery agents, services from authors / writers, etc. Critical operational notification for B2B service receipts.

Notification No. 4/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 — RCM on inter-State supply of specified goods under s. 5(3) IGST

RCM on supply of specified goods. Coverage includes: cashew nuts not shelled / peeled supplied by agriculturist; bidi wrapper leaves (tendu); tobacco leaves; silk yarn supplied by manufacturer; raw cotton supplied by agriculturist; supply of lottery by State Government / UT / Local Authority to lottery distributor; used vehicles, seized goods, old / used scrap supplied by Government (with sub-entries). Each entry has specific supplier and recipient class.

Notification No. 17/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 — E-commerce operator deemed-supplier framework under s. 5(5) IGST

Specifies services where e-commerce operator (ECO) is liable to pay tax as if it were the supplier: (i) passenger transportation services (radio-taxi, motorcab, maxicab, motor cycle); (ii) accommodation services in hotels, inns, guest-houses, club, campsite or other commercial places meant for residential or lodging purposes — except where the person supplying through ECO is liable to register under s. 22(1) CGST; (iii) housekeeping services (plumbers, carpenters, electricians) — except where supplier registered. Substantially amended FY 2021-22 — restaurant services through ECO + cloud kitchens added (Notification 17/2021-CT(R)).

Notification No. 7/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019 — RCM under substituted s. 5(4) / s. 9(4) for real-estate promoters

First operative notification under the substituted s. 5(4) / s. 9(4) post FA 2018 amendment. Specifies that real-estate promoters receiving certain inputs (cement, capital goods, other input services / inputs from unregistered persons in excess of 80% threshold) shall pay tax on RCM. Operationalised the FA 2018 / IGST Amendment Act narrowing of the RCM under sub-s. (4) to notified class.

Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 — Sale by Government Departments — RCM clarifications under s. 5(3) / s. 9(3)

Clarifies that supply by Government / local authority of various services attract RCM by recipient. Excludes supplies for which recipient is unregistered. Also addresses sale of old / used vehicles by Government, scrap, etc. Critical operational guidance for procurement from Government bodies.

Circular No. 130/49/2019-GST dated 31.12.2019 — Clarification on RCM under s. 9(3) / s. 5(3) — restaurant services through ECO

Pre-cursor to the 2021 framework change. Clarified that restaurant services through ECO were not yet covered by Notification 17/2017-CT(R); restaurants were directly liable to pay tax. Position changed w.e.f. 01.01.2022 by Notification 17/2021-CT(R) amending Notification 17/2017 — ECO became deemed-supplier for restaurant services + cloud kitchens.

5. Worked Examples

6. Practitioner Planning

• For every inter-State supply, run the s. 5 → s. 7 → ss. 10-14 IGST sequence — charge under s. 5, inter-State characterisation under s. 7, POS determination under ss. 10-14.
• For RCM under s. 5(3), maintain a master list of Notifications 4/2017-IT(R) (goods) and 10/2017-IT(R) (services) entries; review on every receipt to identify RCM trigger.
• For substituted s. 5(4) RCM, identify whether client falls within notified class — currently primarily real-estate promoters under Notification 7/2019-CT(R).
• For e-commerce operator clients, audit applicability of s. 5(5) framework — radio-taxi, accommodation, housekeeping, restaurant (post 01.01.2022), beauty, cleaning (varies by notification).
• For imports, recall the Mohit Minerals reset — no parallel IGST on ocean freight component beyond what is in CIF + BCD value base.
• For composite supplies (works contract, EPC, supply with installation), apply principal-supply test under s. 8 CGST + L&T jurisprudence to determine single rate.
• For zero-rated supplies (exports + SEZ), structure under LUT (no IGST) or IGST-paid (refund route) — model cash-flow impact before deciding.
• For inter-State branch transfers (distinct-person fiction under s. 25(4)/(5) CGST), confirm IGST charge attaches at branch-transfer; ITC chain preserved.
• For petroleum products (s. 5(2) deferred charge), continue to apply pre-GST excise + VAT regime; monitor Council recommendations on phased GST inclusion.
• For SCN under s. 73 / s. 74 alleging short-payment of IGST, defend on (a) inter-State vs intra-State characterisation, (b) RCM scope under Mohit Minerals, (c) valuation under s. 15 CGST, (d) composite-supply principal-supply test.
• For maximum-rate disputes, recall the 40% cap under s. 5(1); rates above 40% attract constitutional challenge (Maximum-rate cap is the outer boundary).
• For Mohit Minerals follow-up cases — any RCM notification under s. 5(3) that purports to enlarge the charge beyond composite supply scope is vulnerable to challenge.
• For sub-s. (4) post-FA 2018 cases, recall the narrowing — applies only to notified class + notified supplies; non-notified cases are outside RCM regardless of unregistered-supplier source.
• For e-commerce operator s. 5(5) compliance, mandatory registration in every State of supply; deemed-supplier obligations including invoicing in operator's name (with restaurant variant nuances).
• Maintain a master log of IGST notifications and their amendments — particularly the rate schedules (1/2017 + 8/2017) which have been amended dozens of times since 2017.

7. Litigation Defence

• Mohit Minerals defence — for any RCM notification under s. 5(3)/(4) that enlarges the charge beyond the parent statute's permissible scope (composite supply, GST Council persuasive nature), invoke Constitution-Bench reasoning.
• Composite-supply defence — for SCNs alleging separate-supply treatment of bundled supplies, invoke s. 8 CGST principal-supply test + Imagic Creative + L&T line.
• VKC Footsteps defence — for refund disputes on accumulated ITC (zero-rated / inverted), exhibit Rule 89(5) statutory scheme and the VKC Footsteps validation of legislative discretion.
• Safari Retreats defence — for ITC denial on construction inputs where the building is used to make taxable outward supplies (rental, hotel, mall, warehouse), invoke functionality test.
• Bharti Airtel finality defence — for retrospective rectification of inter-State / intra-State classification, exhibit Bharti Airtel reasoning that self-assessment is final unless statutorily reopened.
• Skill Lotto defence — for any challenge to the scope of 'goods' under the IGST charge (actionable claims, digital assets, intangibles), exhibit Skill Lotto framework on legislative latitude.
• AIFTP constitutional defence — for any challenge to IGST charge on services, invoke Article 246A(2) + 269A + AIFTP framework on service-tax constitutional foundation.
• ALFSC financial-services defence — for cross-border financial / leasing / hire-purchase service disputes, invoke ALFSC + L&T composite-contract framework.
• GVK Industries nexus defence — for extraterritorial IGST on imports of services with weak India nexus, invoke real-and-substantial nexus test as constitutional ceiling.
• Vatika Township prospectivity defence — for any retrospective rate-change or notification, invoke strong-presumption-of-prospectivity.
• Maneka Gandhi audi alteram partem — for any adverse rate-redetermination or classification change without prior hearing, invoke procedural fairness.
• Mafatlal unjust-enrichment defence — for refund disputes flowing from s. 5 levy disputes, defend on incidence-not-passed-on grounds.
• Charging-section-anchor defence — invoke the principle that a notification, rule or circular cannot enlarge the parent statutory charge; Mohit Minerals applies this strictly.
• Pre-suspension RCM defence — for sub-s. (4) RCM demands for the suspended period (13.10.2017 to 31.01.2019), exhibit the series of suspension notifications (Notif 38/2017-CT and successors).
• Maximum-rate-cap defence — for any rate exceeding 40%, invoke s. 5(1) cap as outer boundary; rates above are ultra vires.
• Petroleum-charge-deferral defence — for any attempt to charge IGST on petroleum products before Council recommendation under s. 5(2), exhibit deferral architecture.

8. Procedural Map — Inter-State IGST Compliance

Step 1. Identify supply type and inter-State character

Classify supply under s. 7 CGST applied via s. 20 IGST; confirm inter-State under s. 7 IGST (location of supplier + POS in different States/UTs).

Step 2. Determine value under s. 15 CGST

Transaction value if supplier and recipient unrelated and price is sole consideration; otherwise valuation rules under Chapter IV CGST Rules.

Step 3. Determine rate under Notifications 1/2017-IT(R) or 8/2017-IT(R)

Locate HSN/SAC and applicable rate from rate schedules + amendments.

Step 4. Identify RCM applicability under Notifications 4/2017-IT(R) and 10/2017-IT(R)

Cross-check supply / supplier / recipient class against notification entries.

Step 5. For imports, compute IGST under s. 5(1) proviso

CIF + landing (where applicable) + BCD + Social Welfare Surcharge = IGST value base; apply rate.

Step 6. For e-commerce supplies, identify s. 5(5) deemed-supplier framework

Cross-check Notification 17/2017-IT(R) entries; if covered, ECO discharges tax.

Step 7. Compute IGST and report in tax invoice under Rule 46 CGST Rules

Invoice particulars include POS, IGST amount, HSN/SAC.

Step 8. Report in GSTR-1 Table 5A inter-State supplies

POS-wise reporting in Table 5A (B2B) or Table 7A (B2C).

Step 9. Report RCM payable in GSTR-3B Table 3.1(d)

RCM on inward supplies; pay via electronic cash ledger.

Step 10. Claim ITC on RCM-paid in GSTR-3B Table 4

Self-invoice generated under Rule 36; ITC available in same return month subject to s. 16 conditions.

Step 11. For zero-rated supplies, file LUT (Form RFD-11) or pay IGST and claim refund

Annual LUT renewal; or IGST-paid + refund under Rule 96.

Step 12. For composite supplies, apply principal-supply test

Single rate of principal supply applies to the whole bundle.

Step 13. For inter-State branch transfers, raise IGST invoice on distinct person

Value under s. 15 + Rule 28 (open market / 90% of customer value / cost+10%).

Step 14. For SCN under s. 73/74 disputes, build defence package

Mohit Minerals + Bharti Airtel + Vatika Township + composite-supply + functionality-test (Safari Retreats) as relevant.

Step 15. Periodic review of rate-notification amendments

Subscribe to CBIC notifications; rate amendments occur multiple times annually.

CROSS-REFERENCES

• s. 1 IGST Act — Commencement; s. 5 in force 01.07.2017 (Notif 3/2017-IT).
• s. 2 IGST Act — Definitions of integrated tax, output tax, supply, taxable territory.
• s. 3 IGST Act — Officer appointment; officers administer s. 5 charge.
• s. 4 IGST Act — Cross-empowerment; State / UT officers administer s. 5.
• s. 6 IGST Act — Exemption power; reduces s. 5 charge.
• s. 7 IGST Act — Inter-State supply definition; trigger for s. 5(1) charge.
• s. 8 IGST Act — Intra-State supply definition; mirror provision (CGST + SGST applies, not IGST).
• s. 9 IGST Act — Supplies in territorial waters; coastal-State rule.
• ss. 10-14 IGST Act — Place of supply rules; determine inter-State character.
• s. 16 IGST Act — Zero-rated supply; takes supplies outside the s. 5 charge.
• s. 17 IGST Act — Apportionment of IGST collected under s. 5.
• s. 20 IGST Act — Application of CGST provisions to IGST.
• s. 7 CGST Act — Definition of supply (incorporated by s. 2(21) IGST).
• s. 8 CGST Act — Composite and mixed supply (principal-supply test for s. 5 rate determination).
• s. 9 CGST Act — Parallel intra-State charging section.
• ss. 12-14 CGST Act — Time of supply (anchors rate-applicability under s. 5).
• s. 15 CGST Act — Value of taxable supply (value base for s. 5 charge).
• s. 16 CGST Act — Eligibility for ITC (output of s. 5 charge becomes input for downstream).
• s. 17 CGST Act — Apportionment / blocked ITC.
• s. 24 CGST Act — Compulsory registration including for inter-State suppliers and OIDAR.
• s. 31 CGST Act — Tax invoice including POS particulars.
• s. 39 CGST Act — Return-filing including GSTR-3B for tax payment.
• s. 49 CGST Act — Payment of tax + utilisation order of electronic credit ledger.
• s. 54 CGST Act — Refund of IGST including zero-rated, inverted, excess.
• s. 73 / s. 74 CGST Act — Demand and recovery for short-payment of IGST.
• s. 132 CGST Act — Prosecution for evasion of IGST above threshold.
• Rule 28 CGST Rules — Valuation for distinct-person / related-party inter-State supplies.
• Rule 36 CGST Rules — ITC on RCM (self-invoice).
• Rule 46 CGST Rules — Tax invoice particulars (POS for inter-State).
• Rule 89 / 96 / 96A CGST Rules — Refund mechanism for zero-rated supplies.
• Customs Tariff Act 1975, s. 3(7), s. 3(8) — IGST on imports as duty of customs.
• Customs Act 1962, s. 12 — Time-anchor for IGST on imports.
• Constitution Article 246A — Constitutional foundation for IGST charge.
• Constitution Article 269A — Apportionment of inter-State GST between Union and States.
• Notification 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) — Goods rate schedule.
• Notification 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) — Services rate schedule.
• Notification 4/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) — RCM on goods.
• Notification 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) — RCM on services.
• Notification 17/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) — E-commerce operator deemed-supplier.
• Notification 7/2019-Central Tax (Rate) — Substituted s. 5(4) operative notification for real-estate promoters.