2024 (8) TMI 696 - HC - GST

Challenge to Assessment Orders for multiple Assessment Years - case of the petitioner is that the SCN that preceded the impugned order, did not mention any of the ingredients for invoking larger period of limitation under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments, 2017 - HELD THAT - There are shortcomings on the part of the petitioner for not giving proper informations to the department in a readable form. This is evident from the notice issued to the petitioner for the respective periods in Form GST DRC 01. The petitioner compounded the case by not participating in the personal hearing and instead, gave certain informations through google drive link which was inaccessible or not readable and has thus suffered the impugned Assessment Orders. The amount that are collected by the petitioner from the passengers through its General Sales Agents (GSAs) are taxable only in the hand of the Airport Authority of India. If any other separate charges were collected by the petitioner for acting as pure agent of Airport Authority of India, such service may be liable to tax in the hands of the petitioner under the provisions of the respective GST Acts and as per the Notifications issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the respective GST Enactments. This would require a detailed consideration by the respondent. If the petitioner has availed input tax credit on the service tax collected from the passengers towards Passenger Services Fee (PSF) and User Development Fee (UDF), the petitioner would be liable to reverse the same. This aspect also needs to be re-examined by the respondent. Considering the fact that there is no clarity either at the Show Cause Notice or in the respective impugned Assessment Orders, this Court is inclined to quash the respective impugned Assessment Orders and remit the case back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits - The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the respondent by filing reply to the Show Cause Notices, Addendum and Corrigendum that may be issued. The petitioner shall furnish the documents to the respondent. These Writ Petitions are disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenged Assessment Orders for multiple Assessment Years, Dispute over collection of Passenger Services Fee (PSF) and User Development Fee (UDF), Availing input tax credit, Lack of clarity in Show Cause Notices and Assessment Orders.

Analysis:

Challenged Assessment Orders:
The petitioner challenged Assessment Orders for various Assessment Years, disputing the demands confirmed by the respondent. The petitioner contended that the Notices did not mention ingredients for invoking a larger period of limitation under Section 74 of the GST enactments, and they were not issued with Form GST ASMT-10 Notices. The petitioner provided replies and documents, but accessibility issues arose, leading to the passing of the impugned Assessment Orders.

Dispute over PSF and UDF Collection:
The petitioner, an airliner, collected PSF and UDF from passengers, paying it to the Airport Authority of India as a pure agent. The petitioner argued that these amounts should not be taxed in their hands, citing Circular No. 115/34/2019-GST. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's role as a pure agent and directed a re-examination of the tax liability on separate charges collected for acting as an agent.

Availing Input Tax Credit:
The Court highlighted the need to re-examine if the petitioner availed input tax credit on the service tax collected from passengers towards PSF and UDF, emphasizing the liability to reverse it if necessary.

Clarity in Show Cause Notices and Assessment Orders:
Noting the lack of clarity in the Show Cause Notices and Assessment Orders, the Court decided to quash the Assessment Orders and remit the case back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. The Court directed the petitioner to cooperate, file replies, and furnish documents for re-adjudication within 12 months.

Conclusion:
The Court disposed of the Writ Petitions, allowing the petitioner to raise objections and clarifications during the re-adjudication process. The respondent was instructed to complete the process within 12 months from the date of the order, emphasizing cooperation between the parties. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.