2023 (7) TMI 530 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction of state government in the matters relating to export transaction - rejection of refund claim by Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax - HELD THAT - In view of the position in law as laid down in the DHARMENDRA M. JANI AND A.T.E. ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS A.T.E. MARKETING PVT. LTD.) VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI 2023 (4) TMI 821 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the CGST/MGST authorities would not have jurisdiction to retain such amount of tax on the export transactions, and retain such amounts which in fact would be required to be transferred to the Central Government - Thus as fairly submitted at the Bar, the amount would now required to be transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax having his address at Division VI, Mumbai (East) Commissionerate 10th Floor, Near Lotus Info Centre, Near Parel Station (East), Mumbai 400 012. Let the tax as deposited by the petitioner along with the statutory interest as applicable be transferred by the State authorities to the said Central Authority having jurisdiction under the IGST Act. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax rejecting the refund application of the petitioner is required to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The refund application of the petitioner is restored and the same be transferred to the Assistant Commissioner (Central Taxes) for appropriate orders to be passed - Let the application be transferred within two weeks from today and the same be decided by the Assistant Commissioner (Central Taxes) within a period of six weeks thereafter. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Jurisdiction of State Authority to levy tax on export of service under CGST and MGST Acts.

Summary:
The High Court of Bombay, in a Co-ordinate Bench order, addressed the issue of jurisdiction of State Authorities to levy tax on export of service, which the Petitioner argued falls under the purview of IGST Tax exclusively under Central Authorities. Referring to previous decisions, the Court held that export of service comes under the IGST Act, and Central Authorities have jurisdiction over such transactions. The Petitioner had deposited tax with CGST/MGST authorities, which was later found to be outside their jurisdiction. The Court directed the State authorities to transfer the tax amount along with interest to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax under the IGST Act. The Deputy Commissioner's rejection of the refund application was set aside, and the application was to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner within six weeks, in line with the Court's decision. All contentions on the refund application and related issues were kept open. The petitions were disposed of with no costs, and interim applications were also disposed of. Parties were instructed to act on the authenticated copy of the order.