9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced on record a note with regard to the difference between potable water and purified water. Learned counsel points out that potable water is required to conform to norms laid down in BIS:10500-2012, whereas purified water is required to fulfil the norms laid down in BIS:14543:2016. Without taking these aspects into consideration, the impugned order proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was supplying purified water. Secondly, the adjudicating authority concluded that the activity of the petitioner is a composite supply and that supply through mobile units falls within the scope of Heading 9969 (Serial No.13), which is taxable at 18%. On such basis, CGST and SGST of Rs. 96,10,02,025/- each was imposed along with interest and penalty th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce was issued to the petitioner on 27.09.2023. Such show cause notice was replied to on 27.10.2023. Eventually, the order impugned herein was issued on 22.12.2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Notification No.12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 ( Notification No.12/2017 ). He pointed out that Notification No.12/2017 provides for an exemption as regards services provided by a governmental authority, including a municipality, under Article 243W of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that water is expressly exempted under Notification No.2/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 ( Notification No.2/2017) . Even with regard to purified water, he submits that a clarification was issued on 09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such composite supply. By referring to Notification No.11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, learned senior standing counsel contends that the distribution of water is subject to GST since it falls under Heading 9969 . He submits that the respondent concluded that the petitioner was supplying purified water, and that such factual determination cannot be interfered with in course of these proceedings. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the adjudication turned on two factors. First, the adjudicatory authority concluded that the petitioner was purifying the water and that the same would not fall within the scope of exemption. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record a note with regard to the difference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the services provided by the petitioner, the matter requires re-consideration. 6. Although a remand is warranted to enable reconsideration of both the applicability of exemption notifications and the conclusion regarding principal supply, it is also necessary to balance the interest of CMWSSB and revenue interest. Upon considering all relevant factors, I am of the view that the petitioner should remit a sum of Rs. 3 Crore. 7. For reasons set out above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs. 3 crores within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
