9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner is entitled to a limited interim protection. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to respond to the aforesaid show cause dated 1st/3rd August, 2024. Taking into consideration the fact that the writ petition has been affirmed on 30th August, 2024, and since, the time to file response has already expired, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file its response within a period of thirty days from date. Petition disposed off. - RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Avra Mazumder Ms. Alisha Das Mr. Suman Bhowmik Mr. Samrat Das Ms. Elina Dey Mr. Sourendra Nath Banerjee. For the respondent DGGI : Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee Mr. Tapan Bhanja. For CGST CX authorities : Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharjee. For the State : Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them saleable in the market and are eventually sold in the open market at the rates notified by the State of West Bengal, Department of Food and Supplies. According to the petitioner, the cash consideration for each quintal is Rs.136.48 after deduction of Rs.43 for the two gunny bags for each quintal which is the non-monetary consideration. 3. The petitioner would submit that under the circumstances, morefully indicated in the writ petition, the petitioner had applied before the Advance Ruling Authority as provided in Section 97 (1) of the said Act by raising the following questions:- a. What is the value of supply of services provided by the petitioner company to the state government? b. What is the rate of tax applicable on the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the composite supply of services by way of milling of food grains into flour to Food Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal for distribution under public distribution system is eligible for exemption under entry serial no. 3A of the Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 as amended since, the value of goods involved in such composite supply does not exceed 25 % of the value of supply. 5. Having regard thereto, Mr. Mazumder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that there is no justification for the respondents to issue the show cause, that too under Section 74 of the said Act. By drawing attention of this Court to page 150, paragraph 13.1, of the show cause he would submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oided has clearly been spelt out in the statute. Admittedly in this case, the aforesaid aspect has been taken into consideration by the proper officer while issuing the show cause. He would submit that by reasons of the subsequent events and the circumstances more particularly noted in the show cause, the aforesaid ruling can no longer bind the department. In any event, he would submit that the present matter is only at the show cause stage and this Hon ble Court, at this stage, ought not to interfere especially, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is yet to respond to the show cause. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and taking note of the jurisdictional issue raised, I am of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
