This is not legal advice.
The GPL is a complicated license. Part of the problem here is that it uses the words "based on" to determine whether your code needs to go out under the same license. If you're thinking "my code isn't based on this one file," hold on.
"Based on" echos the statutory definition of a "Derivative Work." The jurisprudence around derivative works in software is still very hazy, as not that many cases have gone to trial on this issue. However, the tests the FSF and others have put together involve a few simple guidelines.
- Your code can't link statically or dynamically to the GPL code. In interpreted languages, runtime imports are still a lot like dynamic links, and probably aren't good ideas.
- Your code can't be combined in with the GPL code in a way that they can't be separated easily. Webpack is a good example of this. You also can't just mix functions into the same file by copying and pasting or something dumb like that.
- "Mere aggregation" is allowed -- they are allowed to sit in the same directory or go out on the same hard drive or the same zip folder or something like that.
- Something like a command line call is probably safe, as long as you're interacting with it in some standard, natural way. Don't try to smash your way in through the back door when there's a front door.
The GPL-licensed code still needs to go out under the GPL, but your project itself could go out under the MIT license.
If that's still not super clear to you... You could hire your own attorney. If it's worth it. Note that I am not your attorney, and nothing in this comment comes close to establishing an attorney-client relationship.