9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 1118 - HC - GSTNon-payment of IGST as recipient of services (RCM) on reverse charge mechanism - service of transportation of goods by vessel from the place outside India up to the customs station of clearance in India, relating service or import of goods in terms of Section 5(3) of IGST Act, 2017 read with Notification No.10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) - HELD THAT - It is noticed that on the date of the impugned order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not pronounced its judgment in the case of UNION OF INDIA ANR. VERSUS M/S MOHIT MINERALS PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR 2022 (5) TMI 968 - SUPREME COURT . The impugned order dated 23.03.2022, whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Mohit Minerals Private limited had pronounced its order on 19.05.2022. The respondent had no occasion to consider the same. Since the respondent had no occasion to deal with the same, the impugned order can be set aside and remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Private Limited - Writ Petition stands allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand under reverse charge mechanism for service of transportation of goods by vessel. 2. Consideration of conflicting judgments regarding taxability of tour operator services. 3. Interpretation of legal provisions for interest on delayed payment of tax. 4. Impact of subsequent Supreme Court judgment on the impugned order. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original confirming the demand under reverse charge mechanism for transportation services by vessel. The respondent relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Mohit Minerals case, which struck down certain notifications as unconstitutional. However, the respondent upheld the demand, citing separate taxation under different statutes for distinct taxable events, thereby rejecting the claim of double taxation. 2. The respondent considered conflicting judgments regarding taxability of tour operator services, including the Delhi High Court decision and observations of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of India case. The respondent emphasized the distinction between separate and distinct taxes under different statutes, concluding that no double taxation occurred in the present case. 3. Regarding interest on delayed payment of tax under reverse charge mechanism, the respondent referred to Section 50 of the CGST Act, emphasizing the liability of a person failing to pay tax within the prescribed period to pay interest. The respondent analyzed the legal provisions and found the interest proposed on non-payment of tax to be justified under the law. 4. The petitioner highlighted that the impugned order was issued before the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Private Limited case. Subsequently, the Supreme Court's judgment impacted the legal analysis of the case. The Court observed that the impugned order should be set aside and remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision. As a result, the Writ Petition was allowed by way of remand, directing the respondent to pass a fresh order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. No costs were awarded, and the connected writ miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
