Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (8) TMI 645

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allowed. - Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Karunakar For the Respondents : Mr. R. Nandha Kumar Senior Standing Counsel ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order-in-Original No.MAD-GST-DG2-ASC-06-2022 dated 14.12.2022 passed by the respondent. 2. By the impugned order, the respondent has confirmed the demand proposed in Show Cause Notice No.29/2022 dated 25.08.2022. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:- 15. In view of the above I pass the following order: ORDER a) I demand an amount of Rs. 12,22,729/- (IGST: 4,18,975/- + CGST: Rs. 4,01,877/- + SGST: Rs. 4,01,877/-). (Rupees Twelve lakhs twenty two thousand seven hundred and twenty nine only) toward .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... read with section 50(3) of CGST Act, 2017/ Tamil Nadu GST Act 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST act, 2017; g) I demand an amount of Rs. 98,97,188/- [Rupees Ninety Eight Lakhs ninety seven thousands one hundred and eighty eight only] towards nonpayment of IGST under RCM on the Ocean freight charges [as detailed under para 4.3 and para 13.3 above] and recover under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017; h) I demand interest on the amount of Rs. 98,97,188/- [demanded vide 15 (g) above] and recover under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with section 50 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017; i) I demand an amount of Rs. 4,14,152/- (CGST Rs. 2,07,076/- and SGST Rs. 2,07,076/-) ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... concerned, the issue is now covered in favour of the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. M/s.Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. , 2022 (61) G S TL 257 ( S C) : 2022 INSC 596. The operative portion of the said decision reads as under:- 147 . We are in agreement with the High Court to the extent that a tax on the supply of a service, which has already been included by the legislation as a tax on the composite supply of goods, cannot be allowed. E Conclusion 148 . Based on the above discussion, we have reached the following conclusion: (i) The recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Union and States for the following reasons: (a) The deletion of Article 279B and the inclusion of A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... does not mean that all the recommendations of the GST Council made by virtue of the power Article 279A (4) are binding on the legislature s power to enact primary legislations; (ii) On a conjoint reading of Sections 2(11) and 13(9) of the IGST Act, read with Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, the import of goods by a CIF contract constitutes an inter-state supply which can be subject to IGST where the importer of such goods would be the recipient of shipping service; (iii) The IGST Act and the CGST Act define reverse charge and prescribe the entity that is to be taxed for these purposes. The specification of the recipient in this case the importer by Notification 10/2017 is only clarificatory. The Government by notification did not specify a ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fore the Commissioner of GST Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore at Madurai, C.R.Building, Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002, as far as other demands confirmed vide the impugned order are concerned. 7. The Commissioner of GST Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore at Madurai, C.R.Building, Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002 is suo motu impleaded as the second respondent in this proceeding. 8. The petitioner shall file an appeal before the second respondent within a period of 30 days from today on the rest of the issues. The second respondent shall thereafter proceed to pass an appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law. Needless to state, the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the balance amount on the duty confirmed in the impugned order while fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates