ORDER : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- "1. Declare the provisions of section 96(2) of the RGST Act and section 96 of the CGST Act to the extent it prescribes for constitution of the AAR which consists of members from amongst the officers of central tax and officers of state tax and Rule 103 of the CGST Rules and Rule 103 of RGST Rules as arbitrary and unconstitutional and accordingly quash impugned Order dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure-4); 2. Declare the provisions of section 99 of the CGST Act and Section 99 of the RGST Act to the extent it prescribes for constitution of the AAAR which consists of Chief commissioner of central tax and Commissioner of state tax as its members as arbitrary and unconstitutional and accordingly quash impugned notification dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure-5); 3. Declare Entry 10 of the Impugned Notification dated 28.06.2017 (Annexure-1) to the extent it notifies 'importer' as the 'recipient' of service for the levy of IGST on reverse charge mechanism and authorizing levy on the Importer in case of import of goods on CIF basis as ultravires to section 5(3) of the IGST Act, 2017; 4. Declare proviso to section 5(1) of the IGST Act, 2017, to the extent it provides for the levy and collection of IGST on goods imported into India in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the Value as determined under the said Act at the point when duties of customs are levied on the said goods under section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 without excluding the value of the Transportation Services from the value of imported goods and thereby resulting into double taxation, as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 265 of Constitution of India; 5. Grant refund of the IGST paid by the petitioner till date which may become due consequential to the granting of the above prayers. 6. Quash/set aside/modify Impugned Advance Ruling No.RAJ/AAR/2018-19/14 passed by Authority for Advance Ruling of State of Rajasthan (Annexure-3); 7. Grant such further relief/relief(s), which in the facts and circumstances of this case, may do complete justice to the petitioner; 8. Allow the Writ Petition with costs; 9. Any other order/direction, which Hon'ble court deems appropriate." 2. 6. Quash/set aside/modify Impugned Advance Ruling No.RAJ/AAR/2018-19/14 passed by Authority for Advance Ruling of State of Rajasthan (Annexure-3); 7. Grant such further relief/relief(s), which in the facts and circumstances of this case, may do complete justice to the petitioner; 8. Allow the Writ Petition with costs; 9. Any other order/direction, which Hon'ble court deems appropriate." 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not pressing relief Nos.1, 2 and 4. For relief Nos.3, 5 and 6, submissions have been made that the issue stands squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (Pvt.) Limited : (2022) 10 SCC 700 , wherein, from the indication made in para 169 to 171, the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner would be available. 3. The submissions made by counsel for the petitioner are not disputed by learned ASG, appearing for the respondents. 4. In the case of Mohit Minerals (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia observed and directed as under:- "169. The High Court in the impugned judgment has observed that: "What has led to the present day problems in the implementation of the GST: 133. The GST is implemented by subsuming various indirect taxes. The difficulty which is being experienced today in proper implementation of the GST is because of the erroneous misconception of law, or rather, erroneous assumption on the part of the delegated legislation that service tax is an independent levy as it was prior to the GST and it go vivisect the transaction of supply to levy more taxes on certain components completely overlooking or forgetting the basic concept of composite supply introduced in the GST legislation and the very idea of levying the GST. Prima facie, it appears that while issuing the impugned notification, the delegated legislature had in mind the provision of the Finance Act, 1994, rather than keeping in mind the object of bringing the GST by making the Constitutional (101st) Amendment Act, 2016 to merge all taxes levied on the goods and services to one tax known as the GST. 134. Prima facie, it appears that while issuing the impugned notification, the delegated legislature had in mind the provision of the Finance Act, 1994, rather than keeping in mind the object of bringing the GST by making the Constitutional (101st) Amendment Act, 2016 to merge all taxes levied on the goods and services to one tax known as the GST. 134. It appears that despite having levied and collected the integrated tax under the IGST Act, 2017, on import of goods on the entire value which includes the Ocean Freight through the impugned notifications, once again the integrated tax is being levied under an erroneous misconception of law that separate tax can be levied on the services components (freight), which is otherwise impermissible under the scheme of the GST legislation made under the CA Act, 2016. 135. All the learned senior counsel are right in their submission that if such an erroneous impression is not corrected and if such a trend continues, then in future even the other components of supply of goods, such as, insurance, packaging, loading/unloading, labour, etc. may also be artificially vivisected by the delegated legislation to once again levy the GST on the supply on which the tax is already collected. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 216. Thus, having paid the IGST on the amount of freight which is included in the value of the imported goods, the impugned notifications levying tax again as a supply of service, without any express sanction by the statute, are illegal and liable to be struck down." 170. We are in agreement with the High Court to the extent that a tax on the supply of a service, which has already been included by the legislation as a tax on the composite supply of goods, cannot be allowed. E. Conclusion 171. Based on the above discussion, we have reached the following conclusion: 171.1. The recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Union and States for the following reasons: 171.1.1. The deletion of Article 279-B and the inclusion of Article 279(1) by the Constitution Amendment Act 2016 indicates that the Parliament intended for the recommendations of the GST Council to only have a persuasive value, particularly when interpreted along with the objective of the GST regime to foster cooperative federalism and harmony between the constituent units; 171.1.2. The deletion of Article 279-B and the inclusion of Article 279(1) by the Constitution Amendment Act 2016 indicates that the Parliament intended for the recommendations of the GST Council to only have a persuasive value, particularly when interpreted along with the objective of the GST regime to foster cooperative federalism and harmony between the constituent units; 171.1.2. Neither does Article 279-A begin with a non-obstante clause nor does Article 246-A state that it is subject to the provisions of Article 279-A. The Parliament and the State legislatures possess simultaneous power to legislate on GST. Article 246-A does not envisage a repugnancy provision to resolve the inconsistencies between the Central and the State laws on GST. The "recommendations" of the GST Council are the product of a collaborative dialogue involving the Union and States. They are recommendatory in nature. To regard them as binding edicts would disrupt fiscal federalism, where both the Union and the States are conferred equal power to legislate on GST. It is not imperative that one of the federal units must always possess a higher share in the power for the federal units to make decisions. Indian federalism is a dialogue between cooperative and uncooperative federalism where the federal units are at liberty to use different means of persuasion ranging from collaboration to contestation; and 171.1.3. The Government while exercising its rule making power under the provisions of the CGST Act and IGST Act is bound by the recommendations of the GST Council. However, that does not mean that all the recommendations of the GST Council made by virtue of the power Article 279A (4) are binding on the legislature's power to enact primary legislations; 171.2. On a conjoint reading of Sections 2(11) and 13(9) of the IGST Act, read with Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, the import of goods by a CIF contract constitutes an "inter-state" supply which can be subject to IGST where the importer of such goods would be the recipient of shipping service; 171.3. The IGST Act and the CGST Act define reverse charge and prescribe the entity that is to be taxed for these purposes. The specification of the recipient - in this case the importer - by Notification 10/2017 is only clarificatory. The IGST Act and the CGST Act define reverse charge and prescribe the entity that is to be taxed for these purposes. The specification of the recipient - in this case the importer - by Notification 10/2017 is only clarificatory. The Government by notification did not specify a taxable person different from the recipient prescribed in Section 5(3) of the IGST Act for the purposes of reverse charge; 171.4. Section 5(4) of the IGST Act enables the Central Government to specify a class of registered persons as the recipients, thereby conferring the power of creating a deeming fiction on the delegated legislation; 171.5. The impugned levy imposed on the 'service' aspect of the transaction is in violation of the principle of 'composite supply' enshrined under Section 2(30) read with Section 8 of the CGST Act. Since the Indian importer is liable to pay IGST on the 'composite supply', comprising of supply of goods and supply of services of transportation, insurance, etc. in a CIF contract, a separate levy on the Indian importer for the 'supply of services' by the shipping line would be in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act." 5. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in the light of the judgment in the case Mohit Minerals (supra). 6. The petitioner would be entitled to refund of the IGST paid by it. Needful be done by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, in accordance with law.