GST Council recommendations are not binding on Parliament or State legislatures when they make primary laws. But the executive must follow recommendations when it exercises delegated rulemaking powers that the CGST or IGST Act makes dependent on them. The effect turns on the power being used—not simply on whether a proposal came from the Council.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
In Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., decided on 19 May 2022, a three-judge Supreme Court bench—Justices Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath—considered whether GST Council recommendations bind legislatures. The Court held that they do not bind Parliament or State legislatures in the exercise of their primary lawmaking powers.
The Court read Article 246A as giving Parliament and State legislatures simultaneous authority to legislate on GST, while Article 279A establishes the Council and its recommendation functions. It noted that the Constitution did not make Article 246A subject to Article 279A, and considered the deletion of proposed Article 279B as part of the constitutional structure. The Court described the recommendations this way: “The ‘recommendations’ of the GST Council are the product of a collaborative dialogue involving the Union and States. They are recommendatory in nature.”
When are recommendations binding?
The distinction is between primary legislation and delegated government action. The judgment said that provisions in the CGST and IGST Acts make some delegated powers dependent on Council recommendations. A recommendation can therefore constrain the executive when it uses a particular rulemaking or notification power, even though it does not bind a legislature making a primary law.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
| Government action | Effect of a Council recommendation under Mohit Minerals | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Primary legislation enacted by Parliament or a State legislature | Not binding on the legislature merely because the Council recommended it. | Whether the question concerns a law made by the legislature, rather than an executive rule or notification. |
| Delegated rulemaking or statutory notification under the CGST or IGST Act | Binding where the relevant Act makes that power dependent on Council recommendations. | The specific enabling provision and the kind of power it authorizes. |
This is not a blanket rule that every recommendation has the same legal effect in every setting. To assess a particular measure, identify who issued it, whether it is primary legislation or delegated action, and what the enabling provision says about Council recommendations.
Can a State pass a GST law that differs from a Council recommendation?
The judgment rejects the proposition that a Council recommendation, by itself, binds a State legislature exercising its primary lawmaking power. That does not mean a State has unlimited freedom to enact any tax measure: Mohit Minerals addresses the binding force of recommendations, not every constitutional or statutory limit that may apply to a law. The Court’s holding should not be treated as a general ruling that all differences between States’ GST laws are valid.
Does the ruling make the GST Council optional?
No. The Council has a constitutional role in making recommendations on matters including taxable or exempt supplies, model GST laws, place-of-supply principles, thresholds and rates. The legal distinction concerns the force of a recommendation in different forms of government action; it does not erase the Council’s place in the GST system.
The GST Council’s own explanatory material characterizes the Council as a collaborative institutional mechanism and says the judgment did not fundamentally change the existing GST framework. That is the Council’s account of the ruling, rather than a separate holding of the Supreme Court.
What was the ocean-freight dispute about?
The case arose from IGST on ocean freight in a CIF import transaction. The Court accepted that, under the statutory scheme, an Indian importer could be treated as the recipient of the shipping service. It nevertheless held the separate levy on that service invalid where IGST had already been paid on the composite supply of imported goods, which included transportation and insurance. The separate charge conflicted with the composite-supply provisions in sections 2(30) and 8 of the CGST Act, and the appeals were dismissed.
The import-tax dispute mattered to the outcome; the case was not solely an abstract challenge to the GST Council’s status. Its constitutional discussion of recommendations and its interpretation of the import, reverse-charge and composite-supply rules addressed distinct parts of the case.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How has a later court applied the judgment?
In June 2026, the Madras High Court applied Mohit Minerals in Guru And Co. v. Union of India. It reasoned that statutory notification powers dependent on Council recommendations have the same binding effect in the case before it. This was a High Court application of the Supreme Court’s reasoning to the notification powers at issue—not a new Supreme Court ruling or a replacement of the 2022 holding.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
