9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1419 - AAAR - GSTMaintainability of Application - want of deposition of requisite fee as mandated under the GST law - Levy of tax on the monthly amount being deposited by occupier in the registry of the High Court of Punjab Haryana and which is thereafter released into the account of the applicant from the official bank account of the Punjab Haryana High Court - HELD THAT - The Appellant was mandated to deposit a total of Rs. 20,000/- as fee (Rs. 10,000/- CGST and Rs. 10,000/- HGST) as a mandatory statutory precondition for filing appeal against the order of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana. However, it is found that vide challan No. 23040600189701 dated 21.04.2023, the Appellant has paid only Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- CGST and Rs. 5000/- as HGST), which is not the required fee. Since the appeal filed by the Appellant is incomplete for want of deposition of requisite fee, the Authority is of the view that the appeal filed by the Appellant is not maintainable in terms of Section 100(3) of the Act. Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether tax is leviable on the monthly amount deposited by the occupier in the High Court's registry. 2. Determination of the liable party for tax payment, the applicable mechanism, and rate if tax is applicable. 3. Compliance with the procedural requirement for filing an appeal, specifically the payment of the requisite fee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Tax Leviability on Deposited Amounts: The primary issue revolves around whether the monthly amounts deposited by the occupier in the High Court's registry, and subsequently released to the appellant, are subject to GST. The appellant argued that the nature of these deposits is contingent on pending litigation regarding the property title and the relationship between the appellant and the occupier. The Advance Ruling Authority, however, determined that the activity falls under the "scope of supply" as per Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017, thereby making it subject to GST under a forward charge mechanism. The appellant contended that the ruling was premature, as the courts have not yet adjudicated the nature of these deposits, which could be rent, use and occupation charges, or sale consideration. 2. Liability for Tax Payment: If the tax is deemed applicable, the question arises as to who should bear this liability and under what mechanism. The Advance Ruling Authority concluded that the forward charge mechanism applies, implying that the appellant would be responsible for the tax payment. The appellant challenged this conclusion, arguing that no invoices could be raised for these deposits since they are made under court orders, not as a result of any service agreement between the parties. 3. Procedural Compliance for Appeal Filing: The appeal's maintainability was questioned due to the appellant's failure to pay the full requisite fee for filing the appeal. According to Section 100(3) of the Act and Rule 106(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, a fee of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- each for CGST and HGST) is mandatory for filing an appeal. The appellant only deposited Rs. 10,000/-, rendering the appeal incomplete and not maintainable. Consequently, the appellate authority rejected the appeal on procedural grounds, emphasizing the statutory requirement for fee payment as a precondition for appeal acceptance. Conclusion: The appellate authority dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the fee payment requirement, without delving into the substantive issues regarding the taxability of the deposits. The appellant's arguments concerning the premature nature of the tax ruling and the inability to raise invoices under court-ordered deposits were not addressed due to the procedural dismissal. This highlights the critical importance of adhering to procedural prerequisites in legal proceedings.
|
