9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23rd October, 2017 issued by the Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance Government of India grants exemption to inter-State supply of taxable goods by a registered supplier to a registered recipient for export as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 0.1% subject to fulfilment of the laid down conditions therein Annxure-4. Respondent No.1 couldn't make the export within the time limit of 90 days as required under sub clause (II) of the Exemption notification. Under the terms of tender Annexure-1 Clause 14.1.2, GST along with Cess (as applicable) legally leviabale and payable by successful supplier as per GST law shall be paid by BHEL, extra. Hence, supplier shall not include GST al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew the facts and circumstances of each case. The same principle should be followed in cases of export of services. According to the petitioner his representation remain un-responded. Such a request was also made by the recipient BHEL vide Annexure-10 on 19th August, 2021 citing delay in exports due to implementation of EDI system for the first time in riverine route in the month of June, 2019. It caused consequential cascading delays which were lined up serially to the other barges. However, petitioner was asked to pay the tax amount amounting to Rs. 9,41,49,267.71 as differential tax liable to be paid for the supplies made in the respective years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 (Annexure-12). Petitioner was also asked to produce certain document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CGST Act, 2017. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in these background facts has argued that because of delay in export by the respondent no.1 petitioner is being made liable to pay the differential tax though all the compliances were required to be made by respondent No.1-BHEL the recipient. Respondent No.1 being a State entity under the terms of the tender and also the purchase order is required to pay the GST leviable and payable by the supplier. Respondent No.1 has however surprisingly denied to compensate the petitioner with the additional IGST liability vide its letter dated 2nd November 2021 (Anneuxre-22). Respondent No.2 instead of making the respondent No.1 recipient liable for the payment of the additional IGST has instead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
