9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 834 - HC - GSTSeeking inter-State IGST invoice instead of intra-State CGST/SGST invoice - place of supply on cargo handling services - clarification vide Circular No.103/22/2019-GST dated 28-06-2019 - HELD THAT - Since the CBIT has already provided its clarification on 28th June 2019 (Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition), a direction is now issued to the PPT to comply with the said clarification issued by the CBIT and make amendment with respect to all the Petitioner's invoices from July 2017 onwards incorporating the levy of 18% IGST instead of 9% CGST and 9% SGST in compliance of the provision of the IGST Act. The necessary corrections be carried out not later than eight weeks from today. The said corrections will be carried out manually by the State Commissionerate. The writ petition is disposed off.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in resolving GST-related disputes. 2. Interpretation of the IGST Act regarding the nature of supply in the course of interstate trade or commerce. 3. Compliance of advisory clarifications issued by the CBIC to the Paradip Port Trust (PPT). 4. Implementation of the IGST levy on invoices by the PPT. Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute regarding the issuance of intra-State invoices by the Paradip Port Trust (PPT) to a business entity registered under GST in Chhattisgarh. The petitioner sought inter-State invoices and approached the High Court of Delhi, which directed them to address the issue with the jurisdictional GST Commissioner. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, who advised the PPT to issue inter-State IGST invoices instead of intra-State CGST/SGST invoices. The issue was considered resolved by the CBIC, directing the petitioner to approach the PPT for resolution. 2. A writ petition was filed in the High Court of Delhi, resulting in a clarification issued to the PPT by the Commissionerate of CT & GST, Odisha, stating that the nature of supply constituted a supply service in the course of interstate trade or commerce under the IGST Act. The PPT was advised to treat the supply of services to the applicant as an interstate supply and collect IGST instead of CGST and SGST. The CBIC further clarified the issue on the determination of place of supply for cargo handling services provided by ports. 3. The counsel representing the PPT assured that they would adhere to the advice provided by the CBIC. Given the clarification issued by the CBIC on 28th June 2019, the High Court directed the PPT to comply with the clarification and amend all the petitioner's invoices from July 2017 onwards to levy 18% IGST instead of 9% CGST and 9% SGST, in accordance with the IGST Act. The State Commissionerate was instructed to make the necessary corrections within eight weeks, even if it required accessing the GST portal. 4. The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the aforementioned directions for the PPT to implement the IGST levy on the petitioner's invoices. Additionally, due to COVID-19 restrictions, the parties were allowed to use a printout of the order available on the High Court's website, treated as a certified copy subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, following the prescribed procedure.
|
