9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le in terms of Section 100(3) of the Act. Appeal disposed off. - SH. MANOJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, AND SH. ASHOK KUMAR MEENA, MEMBER Represented By : Sh. Bharat Bhandari, Advocate (Passed by Haryana Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling under Section 101 (1) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017read with Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) Preamble 1. In terms of Section 102 of the Central Goods Services Tax, Act 2017/Haryana Goods Services Tax Act 2017 ( the Act , in Short), this Order may be amended by the Appellate Authority, so as to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record, if such error is noticed by the Appellate Authority on its own accord, or is brought to its notice by the concerned officer, the jurisdictional officer or the Appellant within a period of six months from the date of the Order. 2. In terms of Section 103 (1) of the Act, this advance ruling pronounced by the Appellate Authority under Chapter XVII of the Act shall be binding only: - (a) on the Appellant who had sought it in respect or any matter referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 97 for advance ruling: (b) on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst which the Occupier Company filed a Civil Revision No. 6890 of 2011 in the Punjab Haryana High Court . 1.5 In Civil Revision No. 6890 of 2011 filed by the Occupier-Company, an order dated 13.12.2012 was by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CM No. 24272-CII of 2012 in CM No. 16921-CII of 2012 , the operative part of which is reproduced as under: After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, without going into the relative merits of the main case at this stage, it cannot be disputed that the present premises are being used by the petitioner company. It is also not in dispute that after exercising their option in terms of Clause 6 of the lease deed (P-3) the petitioner company had paid certain amounts from 2006 up till September, 2008 as per the rent specified in the lease deed, although the said amount was being claimed as such towards part payment of the total sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as stipulated in the lease deed P-3. It also cannot be disputed in law that as of now the Petitioner company has not become the owner of the Property in question, therefore, in my view the ends of justice would be fully met if the Petitioner to is directed to deposit the foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties: i) the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 is not interfered with; ii) the respondents will continue to make the deposits in terms of the orders passed on 13.12.2012 in CM No. 24272-CII/2012 in CM No. 16921-CII of 2012 in C.R. No. 6890/2011 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court including for the future; iii) the amount has not been deposited after January, 2020 and the arrears will also be deposited by the respondents within one month from today; iv) the amount to be deposited by the respondents be released to the petitioner against security. The security shall be of the immovable property in suit which is stated to be unencumbered as per the petitioner after having obtained instructions; v) The Registrar of the High Court will verify the security; vi) In view of both the parties having filed objections under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act ), on account of the award which does not permit specific enforcement of the agreement of the immovable property as claimed by the respondents but simultaneously seeks to award damages to the respondents on account of development of structures of the property and in the narrow compass in which a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance Ruling, GST seeking advance ruling on whether any tax is leviable and payable on the monthly amount so being released into the account of the Appellant from the official bank account of the Punjab and Haryana High Court under the above detailed orders of the Punjab Haryana High Court as well as the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India. It was further sought, in the event the above is answered in the affirmative, then who would be liable to pay the tax and under which mechanism and at what rate. 2. QUESTIONS ON WHICH ADVANCE RULING WERE SOUGHT: 2.1 Whether any tax is leviable and payable on the monthly amount being deposited by occupier in the registry of the High Court of Punjab Haryana and which is thereafter released into the account of the applicant from the official bank account of the Punjab Haryana High Court as directed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 13.09.2021 in SLP (C) No. 8754 of 2020, order dated 13.12.2012 assed in CM No. 2472-CII of 2012 in CM No. 16921-II of 2012 CR No. 6890 of 2011 and order dated 07.02.2022 passed in CM-88-II of 2022 in IOIN-EA-26 of 2021 in EA No. 26 of 2021 both by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court. 2.2 If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rically held that the amount would finally be adjusted towards either rent or for use and occupation or sale consideration. Even the Hon ble Supreme Court has made no alterations to the said order of the High Court. At the cost of repetition is it mentioned that till date the litigation between the Appellant and the occupier Company is pending. Thus, by no stretch of the imagination can it be held that any sort of service is being supplied by the Appellant to the Occupier-Company. 5.3 Another aspect of the case which has completely been ignored by the Haryana Advance Ruling Authority is the very fact that since the amount is being deposited in the Registry of the High Court only as per and under the specific directions of the High Court and Supreme Court, the Appellant in no manner is able to raise any sort of Invoice(s) against the same. In a completely cavalier manner, the Haryana Advance Ruling Authority has stated that forward charge is applicable without addressing the above submission of the Appellant. The Ruling, as has been passed is not executable since no invoice can be raised by the Appellant as the amount which is being deposited by the Occupier is as per Court orders a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nancy till 2011. Thus there arises no question of applicability of GST. 5.8 Further, it would not be in vain to reiterate that there is no valid legal lease deed in subsistence today under which the Occupier-Company is sitting in possession of the plot. Thus, the Appellant is not providing any service whatsoever to it and it is only under the various Court orders that the deposits are being made into the Registry of the High Court at Chandigarh. 5.9 Even if for the sake of arguments, it stated that the Appellant is supplying services to the Occupier company, though the same is vehemently denied, even then the provision to section 2 (31) clearly exempts any deposit given in respect of the supply of goods or services or both from being considered as payment made for such supply unless the supplier applies such deposit as consideration for the said supply. In the present case, the Appellant is not considering the said deposits as consideration for any supply of services, as the deposits are being made only as per Court orders, as extensively detailed above. Section 2 (31) of the CGST Act, 2017 is reproduced as follows: Section 2 (31) consideration in relation to the supply of goods or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
