GST

Supreme Court Opines on Nature of Section 19 of 101st Constitutional Amendment

by

In a recent judgment[1], a Division Bench of the Supreme Court engaged in depth with the scope, meaning, and implication of Section 19 of The Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 (‘101st Amendment’) which catalysed the introduction of GST. Section 19 was a transitory provision which stated that existing indirect tax laws would be valid for one year or until States amend them to bring them in conformity with the 101stAmendment, whichever was earlier. The Supreme Court opined that Section 19 was transitory in nature and for that one year it was the repository of competence of State legislatures powers to amend the existing/pre-GST indirect tax laws. It held that the said legislative power could not be exercised after the period of one year contemplated under Section 19.  

Facts 

The case involved three batch of appeals that arose from special leave petitions filed in the case. 

First, related to the State of Telangana where the local VAT law was amended after coming into force of the 101st Amendment, i.e., 16.09.2016. State of Telangana amended the VAT law via an ordinance dated 17.06.2017 and thereafter the State legislature enacted a law replacing the ordinance which came into force on 02.12.2017. The amendment to VAT law was challenged and the Telangana High Court struck it down on the ground that State legislature could have exercised the power of amendment under Section 19 of the 101stAmendment only to bring the VAT law in conformity with GST laws. Also, the Ordinance could not have been confirmed since the State was denuded of legislative competence under Section 19 after 01.07.2017. Since GST laws came into force on 01.07.2017, the one year time period under Section 19 expired on the said date.     

Second, in the Gujarat batch of cases Section 84A was introduced in the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 via an amendment gazette on 06.04.2018 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2006. The aim of introducing the said provision was to enable to the Revenue Department to open assessments which had attained finality. The Gujarat High Court struck down the amendment on the ground of lack of legislative competence on part of State legislature after 01.07.2017 and also on the ground that the amendment was manifestly arbitrary. 

Third, involved amendment to the Maharashtra VAT Act. On 15.04.2017 the amendment to the said act was gazetted and thereafter an explanation was added via an Ordinance w.e.f. 06.03.2019. Thereafter, on 09.07.2019 the Ordinance was replaced by the Amendment Act which inserted various provisions including the said explanation. The amendment was upheld by the Bombay High Court and appeals were filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment. 

Legal Issue and Arguments 

I think, it is best to upfront cite the provision that was the centrepiece of the judgment, i.e., Section 19 of the 101st Amendment which states as follows: 

Notwithstanding anything in this Act, any provision of any law relating to tax on goods or services or on both in force in any State immediately before the commencement of this Act, which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution as amended by this Act shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier. (emphasis added)

At first glance, Section 19 reveals three things: first, it is a transitory provision; second, it allowed the States to amend pre-existing sales tax provisions make them consistent with the 101st Amendment; third, pre-existing laws such as VAT would cease to have force after one year of commencement of the provision or when they were amended or repealed, whichever was earlier. The one year was until 01.07.2017 when the GST laws came into force. The Supreme Court had to adjudicate on the nature and extent of legislative power conferred to the State legislatures under Section 19. 

To justify amendments to its local VAT law, the primary argument that the State of Telangana’s counsel made was that the effect of an Ordinance and a law was the same, only their manner of creation differed. And that the difference was only about procedure adopted and not subject matter of both legislative instruments. Thus, when the State legislature approved the Ordinance to amend the VAT law was enacted on 02.12.2017, its terms ‘related back’ to the date when the Ordinance was promulgated, i.e., 16.09.2016. Thus, the State legislature’s power to enact the law was preserved even after 01.07.2017. (para 27)

Counsel for State of Maharashtra, in a similar vein, argued that the material fact was the existence of the legislative power with States and not the manner of its exercise. It was argued that Section 19 preserved the power of States to amend the laws and it was erroneous to state that the power to amend the laws was only confined to bring the existing laws in conformity with the GST laws.    

The respondents led with their primary argument by drawing an analogy with Section 19 of the 101stAmendment with Article 243ZF of the Constitution.[2] They argued that the latter was incorporated in the Constitution – via 74th Constitutional Amendment – solely with the purpose of allowing amendments to existing laws and bring them in conformity with the new provisions of the Constitution. Similarly, they argued that Section 19 was limited in conferring legislative power to States, i.e., to bring existing laws in conformity with the 101st Amendment. The respondents relied on Section 19 not being made part of the Constitution text per se, but that it was only included in the Amendment Act and argued that it should be interpreted restrictively. The respondents further argued that interpreting the term ‘amend’ used in Section 19 to confer a power on States to make a law wider than curative legislation which runs contrary to the revised Constitutional architecture introduced by the 101st Amendment would not be in aid of the said Amendment.  

Supreme Court’s Observations on Section 19 

The Supreme Court, in a well-reasoned and detailed judgment has described the changes introduced by the 101st Amendment, its rationale, and the nature of transitory provisions among other things. In this post, I will elaborate on its three main observations on Section 19 that I think are relevant from the perspective of examining the interface of the Constitution and tax. 

First, one of the issues that the Supreme Court had to engage with was the effect of Section 19 not being included in the Constitution itself unlike, for example, Article 243ZF. And whether Section 19 was only ancillary to the 101st Amendment and thereby required to be interpreted in a narrow fashion. Supreme Court observed that the purpose of Section 19 was to preserve the existing laws and allow the Parliament and States to repeal and amend them. Since the 101st Amendment deleted various legislative entries relating to indirect taxes, the absence of such a provision would have been ‘catastrophic’ and denuded the States and Union of such crucial legislative power. (para 74) Comparing Section 19 with Article 243ZF, the Supreme Court noted that: 

However, the fact remains that those provisions as well as Section 19 were enacted in exercise of the constituent power. Section 19 is not, in this court’s opinion comparable to a mere Parliamentary enactment. There cannot be any gain in saying that Section 19 is not a mere legislative device. It was adopted as part of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act. Undoubtedly, it was not inserted into the Constitution. Whatever reasons impelled Parliament to keep it outside the body of the Constitution, the fact remains that it was introduced as part of the same Amendment Act which entirely revamped the Constitution. (para 80)

The Supreme Court concluded that Section 19 was a transitory provision with limited life and whether it was part of the Constitution or not was academic, what was crucial was the effect of the provision. Thus, as per the Supreme Court the entire argument that Section 19 should be interpreted in a particular manner because of it being part of the Amendment Act but being included in the Constitution per se was irrelevant. Section 19 was enacted via the same process as other provisions of the Amendment Act and was a result of exercise of constituent power and not legislative power. 

Second, the Supreme Court then opined on the effect of the first observation, i.e., Section 19 was enacted as a result of exercise of constituent power. The Supreme Court noted that the 101st Amendment had brought significant changes to the Constitution in terms legislative powers relating to indirect taxes via deletion of legislative entries and thus the legislative powers of States and the Union ‘had to be directly sourced from the Amendment’ in the interim period. (para 92) As per the Supreme Court, in the hiatus period between coming into force of Section 19 and operationalising Article 246A (under which the States and Parliament exercise legislative powers on GST) legislative power should be traced to Section 19. 

In other words, the Supreme Court said that Section 19 was part of the Constitution since it was enacted through the same process as other provisions of the Constitution Amendment. And that since the 101stAmendment deleted previous sources of powers to levy indirect taxes and introduced new a locus of power under Article 246A, the source of legislative power for the transition period should be traced to Section 19. The ‘hiatus’ as per the Supreme Court was because the GST Council had not immediately recommended principles on the basis of which GST laws could be enacted in exercise of powers under Article 246A. And thus concluded that:

It is, therefore, held that there were no limitations under Section 19 (read together with Article 246A), of the Amendment. That provision constituted the expression of the sovereign legislative power, available to both Parliament and state legislatures, to make necessary changes through amendment to the existing laws. (para 97) 

The legislative power under Section 19, as per the Supreme Court, was only constricted by time, i.e., till 01.07.2017 and not in any other manner as suggested by parties to the case. 

The above is a liberal and expansive interpretation of Section 19 and goes far beyond what the text of the provision says. However, the Supreme Court justified by contextualising it and commenting on the drastic changes brought via the 101st Amendment. In my view, Section 19 only allowed States to amend existing provisions to bring them in conformity with the Constitution or enact new provisions to the same end. Section 19 did not allow States or the Parliament to enact any other provision for any other purpose. The restriction was not ‘only’ of time, but also of the nature and purpose of provisions that could be enacted and amended under Section 19. 

Third, and this is an indirect but proximate point, i.e., the Supreme Court clarified that Section 19 could not be used to clothe a retrospective amendment with validity. In other words, while the VAT Act may have been validly enacted, but once the power of States to enact or amend such laws ceased on 01.07.2017, then the States cannot amend the laws after the said date on the ground that laws can be amended retrospectively to cure a defect. The Supreme Court clarified that what was material was the presence of competence on the date on which amendment to the law was made and not the date when the law was enacted. (para 115)

Conclusion 

Supreme Court’s judgment in the impugned case is a well reasoned judgment that examines in depth the impact and nature of transitory provisions. While the Court may have, in my opinion, interpreted the scope of powers provided to the States more expansively than I think Section 19 provides, the end result nonetheless was that all the amendments to VAT Acts of the three States were held to be void on the ground that the States exercised their legislative powers once Section 19 had ceased to have effect. Telangana’s argument of ‘relating back’ was rejected on the ground that the State legislature did not possess competence on the date it enacted the amendment to approve the Ordinance. Similarly, the Supreme Court rejected the State of Gujarat’s argument that the amendment though effected after 01.07.2017 was retrospective in nature. Amendments by State of Maharashtra met the same fate. 

[1] The State of Telangana V M/S Tirumala Constructions 2023 INSC 942. 

[2] Article 243ZF of the Constitution states that: Notwithstanding anything in this Part, any provision of any law relating to Municipalities in force in a State immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier:   

Delhi High Court Allows IGST Refund to Vodafone

by

In a recent judgment[1], the Delhi High Court ordered the Revenue Department to refund Integrated Goods and Services Tax (‘IGST’) claimed by the petitioners in respect of telecommunication services rendered by them to Foreign Telecom Operators (‘FTO’). Petitioners had entered into agreements with FTOs whereby they provided connectivity services to inbound subscribers of the latter. However, the Revenue Department rejected their refund claim on the ground that the services provided by petitioners did not amount to export of services. The High Court held otherwise.    

Facts 

Petitioners had entered into agreements with FTOs wherein the former agreed to provide connectivity services to subscribers of the latter who were in India/inbound subscribers. There was no privity of contract between the petitioners and subscribers of FTOs, the payments for connectivity services were made by subscribers to FTOs who, in turn, made payments to petitioners as per the terms of the agreement. 

The Revenue Department rejected petitioner’s claims for refund on two grounds: first, that the petitioners filed their claim for refund under Section 54 beyond the limitation period; second, the services provided by petitioners did not amount to export of services since the services were provided to inbound subscribers who were present in India and services were consumed in India. The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that they entered into agreements with FTOs and provided services to the FTOs. The FTOs, in turn, provided services to inbound subscribers. Thus, the services provided by petitioners to FTOs amounted to export of services since the FTOs were located outside India and the place of supply of services was outside India.  

Delhi High Court did not delve deeply into the issue of whether the petitioner’s claim was filed after the period of limitation. This is because the period of limitation was extended by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs via a Notification dated 05.07.2022. Thus, the only issue that the High Court had to engage with was whether services in question constituted export of services within the meaning of Section 2(6), IGST Act, 2017. 

Delhi High Court Decides, Relies on Precedent  

Section 2(6), IGST Act, 2017 defines ‘export of services’ and states as follows: 

            “export of services” means the supply of any service when, – 

  • The supplier of service is located in India; 
  • The recipient of service is located outside India; 
  • The place of supply of service is outside India; 
  • The payment for such service has been received by the supplier of service in convertible foreign exchange; [or in Indian rupees wherever permitted by the Reserve Bank of India]; and 
  • The supplier of service and recipient of service are not merely establishments of a distinct person in accordance with Explanation 1 in section 8; 

(emphasis added)

In the impugned case, the petitioner’s argument was that the recipient of service were FTOs, located outside India while the Revenue’s case that the recipient of service was the inbound subscriber who received the connectivity service due to an agreement between the petitioner and FTO. Since the Revenue was arguing that the inbound subscriber was the recipient, it by extension contended that place of service was in India. Thus, the services provided by the petitioner was not export of services and not entitled to a refund. 

The Delhi High Court instead of adjudicating on facts as to whether the inbound subscriber could be legitimately treated as a recipient of the petitioner’s service, cited the definition of export of services under Rule 6A, Service Tax Rules, 1994 which is similar to Section 2(6), IGST Act, 2017. It then relied on Verizon Communication case[2], to state that the said case covers the issue in the impugned case based on which the Revenue Department has granted refunds to predecessor of the petitioner and thus it allowed the petitioner to claim refunds in the impugned case as well. 

Precedent of Verizon Communication Case  

The Delhi High Court had considered the issue in detail in Verizon Communication case, where similar facts involved domestic telecom service providers, Verizon India and Verizon US. Verizon India had entered into a Master Supply Agreement with Verizon US for rendering connectivity services for the purpose of data transfer. Verizon India had filed for refund of taxes paid on its input on the ground that its output service to Verizon US, i.e., business support service, constituted as an export of service. The Delhi High Court agreed with Verizon India and in allowing its claim for refund, observed that: 

The position does not change merely because the subscribers to the telephone services of Verizon US or its US based customers ‘use’ the services provided by Verizon India. Indeed in the telecom sector, operators have network sharing and roaming arrangements with other telecom service providers whose services they engage to provide service to the former’s subscribers. Yet, the ‘recipient’ of the service is determined by the contract between the parties and by reference to (a) who has the contractual right to receive the services; and (b) who is responsible for the payment for the services provided (i.e., the service recipient). This essential difference has been lost sight of by the Department. In the present case there is no privity of contract between Verizon India and the customers of Verizon US. Such customers may be the ‘users’ of the services provided by Verizon India but are not its recipients. (para 46)

The distinction between the ‘user’ of services and ‘recipient’ of services proved to be crucial in the Verizon Communication case, and the Delhi High Court in the impugned case relied on the same. 

Conclusion 

The distinction between the user of services and recipient of services has been articulated in various cases, only for the said controversy to rear its head again before the Courts. In the impugned case, there was little reason, on substantive grounds, for the Revenue Department to deny refund to the petitioners. Courts, for example, have clearly that the customer’s customer is not your customer and that if a service is provided to a third party at the behest of your customer, the recipient is the customer and not the third party.[3] In the impugned case, this was squarely applicable as the inbound subscribers were not the recipients of services by petitioners, but it was the FTOs. Thus, the service provided by the petitioners to FTOs constituted as export of services entitling them to refund of IGST. 

[1] Vodafone Idea Limited v Union of India & Others 2023: DHC: 7468-DB. 

[2] Verizon Communication India Pvt Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-III 2018 (8) GSTL 32. 

[3] See Vodafone Essar South Limited v CCE, Bangalore (Adn). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193357462/ (Accessed on 30 October 2023).  

Allahabad HC Quashes Letter Issued by YEIDA Demanding Payment of GST

by

Allahabad High Court recently allowed a writ petition[1] and quashed a letter issued by the Advisor to Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) requiring the petitioner to pay GST of 18% on the premium of Rs 3.80 crores charged by the YEIDA against an institutional plot allotted to the petitioner. The High Court inter alia observed that the YEIDA did not have the authority to demand payment of GST. 

Introduction 

The petitioner’s case was that it be allowed to claim tax exemption under Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28 June 2017 read with Notification No. 32/2017 dated 13 October 2017. The petitioner argued that YEIDA had doubt as to the applicability of the Notification to the case and had applied to Authority for Advance Rulings (‘AAR’) which had decided in petitioner’s favor. YEIDA, on the other hand, defended its demand of tax from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil the requirement of exemption and further that its demand for tax was only provisional in nature and the petitioner could seek refund from the Revenue Department. 

Allahabad HC Decides 

Allahabad High Court examined the relevant entries of the Notifications wherein the exemption was claimed by the petitioner. The entries allowed exemption to upfront amounts such as premium, salami, development charges, etc. leviable in respect of the service of long term lease provided by the Development Corporations/Undertakings. The High Court observed that the plain letter of the law did not allow any doubt to arise with regard to applicability of the exemption to the impugned case. The only doubt that YEIDA had was whether the exemption was applicable to allotment of plots made for public health purposes. To this end, the High Court noted that YEIDA had approached AAR with a specific query, i.e., whether GST was chargeable on premium and lease rent on plots allotted to hospitals against lease granted for 30 years. And AAR had clarified that the GST was not applicable. 

Despite the advance ruling issued by AAR which was not challenged, YEIDA issued a letter to the petitioner demanding deposit of GST @18%. It was this letter which was the subject matter of challenge. 

The Allahabad High Court observed that the stand taken by YEIDA was wholly unfounded in law. And that any doubt that arose from the language of the exemption notification was resolved by AAR. Further, the High Court noted that the AAR had confirmed GST exemption subject to the conditions mentioned in the Notification. But a look at the Notification revealed that the legislature had chosen to give unconditional exemption with respect to upfront amounts paid for such plots. Thus, it concluded that: 

Consequently, the letter dated 24.08.2018 issued on behalf of YEIDA is wholly unfounded in law and also in facts. Besides absence of conditions imposed by the legislature while granting exemption, no fact allegation has been made in the said communication of any specific condition having been violated by the petitioner. (para 22) 

The Allahabad High Court thereby quashed the letter issued by YEIDA and ordered that any amount paid by the petitioner in pursuant of such communication be refunded.  

Conclusion 

The impugned case is one of those cases where one wonders why the dispute arose in the first place. YEIDA’s doubt – superfluous to begin with – as regards applicability of the exemption was clarified by AAR, but it still demanded payment of GST from the petitioner despite no claim by the Revenue Department that the transaction was exigible to GST. YEIDA’s argument that the demand for tax was ‘provisional’ and the petitioner could seek a refund missed the point completely. Why should the tax be paid if there is no liability to pay tax in the first place? Whether it will be refunded or not is immaterial.    

[1] M/S Ram Kamal Healthcare Pvt Ltd v Union of India & Ors 2023:AHC: 191485-DB. 

Allahabad HC Opines on Section 129, CGST Act, 2017

by

In a recent case[1], the Allahabad High Court has reiterated an essential condition to invoke Section 129, CGST Act, 2017, i.e., an intention to evade tax. While a similar observation has been made by Supreme Court in M/s Satyam Shivam Papers case[2], the High Court’s reinforcement is perhaps necessary due to repeated transgressions by the Revenue Department.

Facts 

In the impugned case, the petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of industrial grade steel components such as channels, beams, etc. The petitioner was transporting the said goods to M/s Maa Ambey Steels with the relevant tax invoices, e-way bills, etc. During transport, the said goods were intercepted, and the relevant officers found that the e-way bill accompanying the goods had been cancelled by the purchaser, M/s Maa Ambey Steels. In the absence of a valid e-way bills, the goods were seized. The petitioner subsequently explained to the Revenue Department that all the relevant e-way bills had been completed but the it was unaware of the fact that e-way bills had been cancelled by the purchaser. The petitioner tried to convince the Revenue Department that the transaction in question was genuine and goods were being sold by a registered dealer to another registered dealer. Dissatisfied with the petitioner’s response, the Revenue Department passed an order under Section 129(3), CGST Act, 2017 and a penalty was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner assailed the said order via writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. 

No Intention to Evade Tax 

The Allahabad High Court engaged with the arguments of the petitioner and the Revenue Department. The petitioner’s primary argument was that while an order was passed against it under Section 129 whereby a penalty imposed, but in the said order there was no reference to the petitioner’s intention to evade tax. The petitioner argued that in the absence of an intent to evade tax, the penalty should have been imposed on it under Section 122(ix), CGST Act, 2017 and not Section 129(3), CGST Act, 2017. (para 5) The Revenue Department, on the other hand, argued that Section 129 starts with a non-obstante clause and thus it overrides every other provision of CGST Act, 2017. (para 7) And that transporting goods without a valid e-way bill attracted Section 129, CGST Act, 2017. 

The Allahabad High Court observed that once the dealer had informed the Revenue Department of the attending and mediating circumstances that led to cancellation of the e-way bill, it was a minor breach on the petitioner’s end. The purchaser had cancelled the e-way bill due to valuation issues of the goods. And the petitioner had sold the goods in question to another purchaser subsequently. And thus the High Court observed that: 

The authority could have initiated proceedings under section 122 of the CGST Act instead of proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act. Section 129 of the CGST Act must be read with section 130 of the said Act, which mandate the intention to evade payment of tax. Once the authorities have not observed that there was intent to evade payment of tax, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act ought not to have been initiated, but it could be done under section 122 of the CGST Act in the facts & circumstances of the present case. (para 10) 

The Allahabad High Court further added that while Section 129 deals with detention and seizure of goods and Section 130 with confiscation of goods; a purposive reading of both the provisions deals indicates that the legislature intended that an intent to evade tax is sine qua non to initiate proceedings under the aforesaid provisions. (para 11) 

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s observations in the impugned case are not unprecedented. The Supreme Court in M/s Satyam Shivam Papers case had observed that the goods in question could not be transported in time due to factors beyond the taxpayer’s control and thus an intent to evade tax could not be attributed to the taxpayer. It is not unsurprising that an elemental issue needs reiteration by different Courts repeatedly to underline the legislative intent and scope of the provision. Hopefully, this judgment will prove constructive in enhancing the Revenue Department’s understanding of the scope of Section 129 and by extension, of the scope of Section 130 of CGST Act, 2017.    

[1] M/s Shyam Sel and Power Ltd v State of UP and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 374. 

[2] Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others v M/s Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt Ltd (2022) 134 taxmann.com 241.  

Gujarat AAAR Disallows ITC on Mandatory CSR: Provides Superfluous Reasoning

by

Gujarat Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (‘Gujarat AAAR’) in a recent ruling[1] has concluded that the applicant was not allowed to claim ITC on inputs and input services for mandatory expenditure made in pursuance of Section 135, Companies Act, 2013. The answer to this question should have been obvious after the amendment to CGST Act, 2017 via the Finance Act, 2023. However, the Gujarat AAAR referred to GST Council meetings, IT Act, 1961 in an unnecessary exercise of providing superfluous reasons for its conclusion. 

Introduction 

The applicant, in the first instance, approached Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (‘Gujarat AAR’) to seek answer to the following question: whether the inputs and input services procured by the applicant to undertake mandatory CSR activities as required under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 qualify as being in the course and furtherance of business and are eligible for ITC under Section 16, CGST Act, 2017. The Gujarat AAR answered in the negative and primarily relied on the definition of CSR under Company (CSR Policy) Rules, 2014 to hold that as CSR activities are excluded from the normal course of business activities of the applicant, ITC cannot be claimed for such activities. 

The applicant appealed to Gujarat AAAR and assailed the Gujarat AAR’s interpretation on various grounds. The applicant, for example, correctly challenged the Gujarat AAR’s decision on the ground that there was no nexus between the definition of CSR under Company (CSR Policy) Rules, 2014 and eligibility to claim ITC under Section 16, CGST Act, 2017. The applicant also alternatively argued that Section 16, CGST Act, 2017 uses the phrase ‘in course and furtherance of business’ while Company (CSR Policy) Rules, 2014 use the phrase ‘normal course of business’ and that Gujarat AAR erred in interpreting both the phrases to mean the same thing. 

Gujarat AAAR’s Reasoning and Conclusion

As stated above, the answer to the applicant’s question should have been straightforward with the Gujarat AAAR relying on Section 139, Finance Act, 2023 which introduced the following clause to Section 17(5), CGST Act, 2017:

“fa) goods or services or both received by a taxable person, which are used or intended to be used for activities relating to his obligations under corporate social responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013;

Section 17(5), CGST Act, 2017 enumerates the situations in which ITC is blocked, and the insertion of above clause in Section 17(5), CGST Act, 2017 means that goods or services or both used to fulfil mandatory CSR obligations will not be eligible for ITC. And as a result of this deeming fiction, mandatory CSR activities will not be considered as activities ‘in the course of business’.

Instead, the Gujarat AAAR chose to arrive at this conclusion via a circuitous route: it referred to the decision of the 48th GST Council to disallow ITC on mandatory CSR activities, cited a paragraph of the relevance of GST Council recommendations under the GST regime. (para 17) It then unnecessarily referred to the fact that IT Act, 1961 disallowed expenditure to an assessee for mandatory CSR activities. (para 16) Reference to all the above sources was and is perhaps necessary to resolve an ambiguity or an uncertainty in a statutory provision. In such cases, it is incumbent on adjudicating body to refer to additional sources in order to decide the case and/or answer specific queries. 

In the impugned case, the question was straightforward and the legal position amply clear after the amendment made to Section 17, CGST Act, 2017 via the Finance Act, 2023. Gujarat AAAR could have simply referred to the amended provision and answered the applicant’s query instead of stating multiple reasons and making unnecessary references to IT Act, 1961. Gujarat AAAR’s ruling in the impugned case is an example of arriving at the right conclusion by using superfluous reasoning. 

Conclusion 

It is hoped that the relevant authorities – AAR/AAAR – will adopt more precise reasoning and arrive at proper conclusions instead of referring to sources that have no relevance in interpreting a statutory provision that contains no ambiguity. It would prevent unnecessary confusion that may arise in the mind of taxpayers who are similarly situated or otherwise.   

[1] Re: M/s. Adama India Private Limited, GUJ/GAAR/APPEAL/2023/04, dated 26.09.2023. Available at https://taxguru.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/In-re-Adama-India-Private-Limited-GST-AAR-Gujrat.pdf (Last accessed on 10.10.2023).  

Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Order Denying ITC

by

In a recent judgment[1], the Calcutta High Court set aside the order of the Revenue Department wherein the ITC of assessee was disallowed on the ground of mismatch in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. While Courts have, of late, been consistent in their stance that the mismatch in details between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B cannot be a ground to deny ITC. In the impugned case, the High Court made similar observations suited to the facts of the case. 

Facts

In the impugned case, the assessee was registered under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017. The assessee purchased several bidi leaves from various suppliers. In January 2021, physical inspection of the business premises was assessee was carried on and thereafter proceedings against the assessee were initiated under Section 73, CGST Act, 2017. Eventually, an order was passed against the assessee which was confirmed on appeal. The order rejected ITC claim of the assessee on the ground that the there was mismatch of ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and the same was not reflected in GSTR-2A.

Arguments and Decision 

The assessee claimed that ITC was denied and order passed against it without considering the documents, without providing the assessee an opportunity of being and also alleged violation of principles of natural justice. The assessee claimed that the transactions relating to purchase of bidi leaves were genuine and ITC cannot be denied on the ground that one of the suppliers errenously mentioned the wrong GSTIN number of the petitioner in the invoice. The assessee further argued that one of its suppliers had erroneously mentioned a B2B supply as a B2C supply and these errors could have been easily rectified by the State. 

The State countered the assessee’s assertion of violation of principles of natural justice enthusiastically. It argued that the assessee was served multiple notices to appear before it and present its case, but it either failed to appear or adopted delaying tactics and did not produce the relevant invoices. The Calcutta High Court with the State on this count and noted that fairness cannot be ‘a one way street’ and that the assessee cannot adopt an implacable approach and refuse to appear before adjudicatory authorities only to later complain of violation of principles of natural justice. 

Nonetheless, the Calcutta High Court observed that even in an ex-parte order, an adjudicating authority should proceed on the basis of records available and deal with the appeal on merits in accordance with the law. It observed that: 

Any mismatch ought to have been attempted to be ascertained from the records of the respondent authorities and their online portal. (page 6)      

The Calcutta High Court then referred to a Circular issued by CBIC on 27 December which inter alia provided for the approach to be followed by the Revenue Department where the supplier reports a supply as B2C instead of B2B in their GSTR-1. Since the steps prescribed in the said Circular were not followed, the High Court set aside the order denying the assessee’s claim of ITC. 

Conclusion 

While the Calcutta High Court’s order in the impugned case cryptic and is unlikely to be considered as ‘landmark’, there are three important issues that need to be underlined here: first, that the High Court’s observation that authorities should not deny ITC to assessee on cavalier grounds such as basic errors in GSTR-2A and should verify the claims of assessee by relying on their records and verifying from the online portal; second, the High Court’s emphasis on considering the relevant law and procedure even when passing an ex-parte order; third, the need for the Department of Revenue to follow the procedure and steps prescribed in its own Circulars and not act in violation or at least in defiance of those steps. It is important that other Courts note the aforesaid aspects in the impugned judgment and build on them to create a body of jurisprudence that holds that State account for denying ITC on flimsy grounds.      

[1] M/S Makhan Lal Sarkar and Anr v The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax B.I. and Ors WPA/2146/2023, decided on 18.09.2023.  

Kerala HC Holds ITC Cannot be Denied Due to Difference in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B

by

In a recent judgment[1], the Kerala High Court has aligned with an emerging jurisprudence wherein the High Courts have held that under the GST regime a taxpayer’s ITC cannot be denied merely on ground of difference between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. 

In the impugned case, the Kerala High Court expressly noted the ratio of Supreme Court in M/s ECom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited case[2] and the Calcutta High Court’s judgment in Suncraft Energy Private Limited case[3] to conclude that ITC of an assessee under the GST regime cannot be denied merely on the ground of discrepancy in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. It then cited a recent judgment of the Kerala High Court itself in Diya Agencies case[4] where the Kerala High Court had held that: 

In view thereof, I find that the impugned Exhibit P-1 assessment order so far denial of the input tax credit to the petitioner is not sustainable, and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to give opportunity to the petitioner for his claim for input tax credit. If on examination of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, the assessing officer is satisfied that the claim is bonafide and genuine, the petitioner should be given input tax credit. Merely on the ground that in Form GSTR-2A the said tax is not reflected should not be a sufficient ground to deny the assessee the claim of the input tax credit. The assessing authority is therefore, directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to give evidence in respect of his claim for input tax credit. The petitioner is directed to appear before the assessing authority within fifteen days with all evidence in his possession to prove his claim for higher claim of input tax credit. After examination of the evidence placed by the petitioner/assessee, the assessing authority will pass a fresh order in accordance with law. (para 8) (emphasis added)

While the Kerala High Court’s 4-page order in the impugned case does not offer much scope for analysis, the primary aim of this blog post is two-fold: first, to record that Courts are increasingly taking the view that a taxpayer’s claim for ITC under GST regime cannot and should not be denied on grounds of discrepancy between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. This line of reasoning, if continued, will likely further underline the procedural nature of the former return and that it is only for information purposes and not the only basis of substantive claims. Courts are, until now, taking a reasonable view that ITC cannot be denied or affirmed merely based on information recorded and contained in GSTR-2A. Second, I wish to highlight that while in the impugned case the Kerala High Court relied heavily on the ratio in Diya Agencies case, it is important to highlight that in the latter case the Kerala High Court was expressly dealing with a situation where the taxpayer claimed that it was in possession of genuine invoices and bills that proved that transactions in question were genuine. Accordingly, in Diya Agencies case, the taxpayer was directed to appear before the concerned officer to prove the claim of ITC. While in the impugned case, no such fact was recorded by the Kerala High Court though it is not possible to know for sure if such claim was made by the taxpayer. Going forward, these factual distinctions may prove vital in reinforcing or diluting what is an emerging body of case law as regards the relevance of GSTR-2A in claiming ITC.     

[1] M/S Henna Medicals v State Tax Officer, Second Circle, SGST Department 2023: KER: 55979. 

[2] State of Karnataka v M/S Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited 2023 SCC OnLine SC 248. 

[3] Suncraft Energy Private Limited v The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge (2023) 8 TMI 174. 

[4] Diya Agencies v State Tax Officer 2023 (9) TMI 955. 

Andhra HC Sets Aside SCN: Holds that it is Vague and Dubious

by

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a recent judgment[1] set aside the showcause notice (‘SCN’) issued by the Revenue Department on the ground that the SCN was vague and dubious. The High court held that the SCN did not contain sufficient details and particulars to enable the taxpayer to reply or file appropriate objections. 

Facts 

The petitioner in the impugned case, M/s Sakhti Steel Industries Pvt Ltd, was in the business of trading TMT bars, billets and ferrous scrap and importing iron scrap from foreign countries. The parent company of the petitioner, M/s Sakhti Ferroy Alloys Pvt Ltd, manufactured TMT bars and billets. The petitioner used to purchase the TMT bars and billets from its parent company and sell them to various States. The petitioner stated that to maintain better operational efficiency it took on lease vacant land with small builtup area that belonged to its parent company and in a portion of the said premises the parent company also operated. The petitioner had obtained registration in Andhra Pradesh where the said premises were located. 

The concerned Deputy Assistant Commissioner visited the business premises of the petitioner and issued a SCN with allegations that the petitioner had obtained registration by ‘fraud, wilful misstatement or misrepresentation of facts’ and the petitioner was asked to file a reply within 7 days. The SCN was issued because the Deputy Assistant Commissioner based on commonality of premises of the petitioner and its parent company concluded that the former had obtained registration by fraud. The petitioner filed a reply denying all allegations of fraud and refuting the fact that its business was not genuine, but the report of Deputy Assistant Commissioner was accepted by the appellate authorities and petitioner’s registration was cancelled. Against the said orders, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 

High Court Sets Aside SCN 

The Andhra Pradesh High Court was precise and unforgiving in its observations about the conduct of the Revenue Department. The High Court cited Section 29, Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax, 2017 and noted that the grounds on which the registration of a taxpayer can be cancelled are specifically enumerated in the provision. Some of the grounds in the provision are: registered taxpayer has contravened any of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder, not filing of returns and obtaining registration by fraud, misstatement or misrepresentation of facts. The High Court noted that the SCN issued to the petitioner only mentioned the latter and observed that grounds mentioned in SCN were vague, dubious and did not furnish enough details for the taxpayer to respond to them meaningfully. The High Court added that the purpose of SCN is to state the formal grounds of accusation to enable the accused to reply in satisfaction of principles of natural justice and equity. (para 7) The nature of SCN was enough for the High Court to conclude that principles of natural justice had bene flagrantly violated and that the ‘very foundation for invocation of cancellation is feeble as it has no legal sanctity.’ (para 7)

While the vagueness in the SCN was enough for the Andhra Pradesh High Court to quash it, the High Court nonetheless added that the petitioner in its reply to SCN had stated that it was not involved in any fake business and vouched for the authenticity of its bills and details of all its invoices involving purchases and sales. The petitioner was willing for its records to be scrutinized to disprove allegations of it running a fake business. However, the High Court observed, instead of resorting to such a ‘logical and legal exercise’ the authorities relied on the conjecture of the inspecting authority who suspected the petitioner to be involved in bill trading without movement of goods, for which there was no proper basis. (para 10)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court was thus unsparing in its comments on the Revenue Department’s conduct at the time of issuance of SCN and thereafter. And its observations about the lackadaisical approach of the Revenue Department were certainly not inaccurate. 

Conclusion 

The Andhra Pradesh High Court adopted a pro-taxpayer approach in the impugned case without detracting from the basic principles of law. It interpreted the relevant provision – Section 29, Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax, 2017 – reasonably to cast a burden on the State to articulate specific grounds of accusation in a detailed manner to enable the taxpayer to respond meaningfully. Merely reproducing the language of the statutory provision in the SCN was not sufficient to prove that the ground for cancellation of taxpayers’ registration were satisfied. And the High Court went further to castigate the authorities to follow a logical path once the taxpayer replies to the SCN instead of merely providing their stamp of approval to the suspicions of the inspecting officer.    

[1] M/s Sakhti Steel Industries Pvt Ltd v Appellate Additional Commissioner Sales Tax (Tirupati) TS-496-HCAP-2023-GST. 

Understanding Orissa High Court’s Judgment in Safari Retreats Case

by

This post is an attempt to understand the Orissa High Court’s judgment in Safari Retreats case.[1] While the judgment was pronounced by the High Court in April 2019, its current relevance stems from the appeal against the judgment being currently heard by the Supreme Court. This post is an attempt to understand the petitioner’s case as presented before the Orissa High Court and the nature of issues that the Supreme Court may have to engage with to decide the issue satisfactorily.  

Introduction 

The facts of the case were straightforward: petitioners were in the business of construction of shopping malls for the purpose of letting out the same to numerous tenants and lessees. Petitioners purchased huge quantities of materials and inputs for the purpose of construction, i.e., cement, plywood, wires, lifts, electrical equipment, etc. and paid GST on the said purchases. The petitioner completed construction of one of the shopping malls in Bhubaneshwar and decided to let out different units to various persons on a rental basis. The activity of letting out units amounts to a supply of service and is taxable under the relevant GST legislations, i.e., Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and the Odisha Goods and Services Act, 2017 (‘GST laws’). 

The petitioner claimed that it had accumulated Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) of Rs 34,40,18,028/- on purchase of inputs for construction of the shopping mall. However, the Revenue Department advised it to deposit the entire sum instead of claiming ITC on the same in view of the restriction placed under Section 17(5)(d) of GST laws. Section 17(1), CGST Act, 2017 states that where the goods or services or both are used by a registered person partly for the purpose of business and partly for other purpose, the amount of credit shall be restricted to so much of the input tax as is attributable to the purposes of his business. Section 17(5) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), ITC shall not be available for certain supplies. Section 17(5)(d) provides that ITC shall not be available in respect of the following: 

            Goods or services or both received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant or machinery) on his own account including when such goods or services or both are used in the course or furtherance of business. 

Explanation.- For the purposes of clauses (c) and (d), the expression “construction” includes re-construction, renovation, additions or alterations or repairs, to the extent of capitalization, to the said immovable property. 

The Revenue Department cited the aforesaid provision and stated that the petitioner cannot claim ITC of of Rs 34,40,18,028/- against the supply of service, i.e., renting of units in the shopping mall. The petitioner challenged the vires of Section 17(5)(d), CGST Act, 2017 arguing that in its case there was no break in the tax chain. The petitioner argued that it had paid GST on purchase of its inputs and collected tax from the tenants while letting out units in the shopping mall. And while blocking ITC if an immovable property is sold made sense, because sale of immovable property after issuance of completion certificate did not attract GST. However, blocking ITC in the petitioner’s case was devoid of reason since there was no break in the tax chain, i.e., its input and output were both subject to GST. 

Orissa High Court’s Decision 

The Orissa High Court’s judgment in the impugned case is a unique case of devoting a substantial part of the judgment to arguments of the parties and earmarking only a miniscule portion to the conclusion without articulating detailed reasons for its conclusion. The High Court stated that the very purpose of GST laws is to ensure uniform collection of tax on supply of goods and services and prevent multi taxation. And by stating the aforesaid objective of GST laws, it concluded that: 

            While considering the provisions of Section 17(5)(d), the narrow construction of interpretation put forward by the Department is frustrating the very objective of the Act, in as much as the petitioner in that case has to pay huge amount without any basis. Further, the petitioner would have paid GST if it disposed of the property after the completion certificate is granted and in case the property is sold prior to completion certificate, he would not be required to pay GST. But here he is retaining the property and is not using for his own purpose but he is letting out the property on which he is covered under GST, but still he has to pay huge amount of GST, to which he is not liable. (para 19) (emphasis added)      

Thus, the Orissa High Court concluded that Section 17(5)(d) should be read down and the narrow reading adopted by the Revenue Department should not be accepted since ‘the very purpose of the credit is to give benefit to the assessee.’ (para 20) In stating the latter, the High Court relied on the observation made by the Supreme Court in Eicher Motors case[2] where in the context of excise duty, it had held that the right to claim ITC vests when the tax on inputs is paid and right to ITC becomes absolute when input is used in the manufacture of the final product. 

There are two pillars on which the High Court’s conclusion is standing: GST’s avowed purpose of preventing multi taxation, which in the context can be reasonably interpreted to mean prevention of tax on tax; second, is the High Court’s understanding of ITC as a benefit that the State provides to an assessee. 

The first reason has credence and relevance in every case involving blocking of ITC. Since it is a vital objective of GST to prevent cascading effect of taxes, the burden should be on the State to justify why in certain circumstances there is deviation from it and articulate the underlying rationale or policy objective. So High Court’s reliance on GST’s purpose of ensuring uniformity and preventing tax on tax was justifiable. Prevention of tax on tax and uniformity of GST, both are relevant and valid purposes of GST, on the touchstone of which cases can be adjudicated, but the High Court seems to have relied on them excessively in the impugned case. Equally, the High Court did not bother to seek an explanation from the State as to the reason for incorporating Section 17(5)(d). Second, Supreme Court’s observation in Eicher Motors case about ITC being a benefit provided to the taxpayer was in a different context: rules to claim ITC were changed after several taxpayers had utilized the input in the final product. It was in that context that the Supreme Court observed that ITC had vested in the taxpayer. In the impugned case, there was no change in the relevant provisions after the petitioner had initiated the transaction. Section 17(5)(d), CGST Act, 2017 clearly stated that ITC in petitioner’s case was blocked and there was no change while the transaction was ongoing. While the differing fact situations not detract from the larger debate on whether ITC is a State’s concession or taxpayers’ right; the issue did receive a rather cursory treatment from the High Court in the impugned case.  

Petitioner’s Arguments before the Orissa High Court 

I’m discussing the arguments adopted before the High Court at the end because they are likely to be repeated before the Supreme Court in a similar manner or edited suitably. I’m mentioning some of the arguments below to better illustrate how the petitioners’ in the impugned case viewed their position wherein they were unable to claim ITC and their view of the provision in question, i.e., Section 17(5), CGST Act, 2017. 

First argument of note that the petitioner adopted was that by allowing ITC to taxpayers who construct a building with the intent of sale under Schedule II, para 5(b) of CGST Act, 2017, but denying it to petitioners who let out such property on rent is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners alleged discriminatory treatment and argued that Section 17(5)(d) was arbitrary in nature. The petitioners laboured on the fact that under Schedule II, para 5(b) of CGST Act, 2017 ITC is only blocked if the entire consideration for the building in question is received after issuance of completion certificate. As per petitioners in such instances blocking of ITC made sense since no GST is charged in such scenarios, leading to disruption of tax chain. But in the petitioner’s case they were paying GST on their inputs and collecting GST on their output, i.e., renting property to their tenants leading to an unbroken tax chain and thereby not creating any rationale for blocking ITC in their situation. 

Second, the petitioner touched upon the fact that blocking their ITC is an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution but did not elaborate on the unreasonableness.

Third, they repeatedly mentioned how the blocking of their ITC constitutes a detraction or at the very least a dilution of GST’s objective of preventing multiple taxation. And that by ensuring that the petitioner bear the additional burden of tax by denying them ITC the objective of GST was being frustrated. 

Fourth, the petitioner pointed out that one of the ingredients in Section 17(5)(d) was that the construction should have been done by the taxpayer ‘on their own account.’ The petitioners distinguished their case from the scenarios contemplated under Schedule II, para 5(b) of CGST Act, 2017 as well as under Section 17(5)(d). They argued that the former contemplated situations where construction was ‘intended for sale’ while the latter contemplated construction by a taxpayer ‘on his account’. And that the petitioner constructed the shopping mall with an intention ‘for letting out’ to tenants and thus their cannot be covered by Section 17(5)(d). 

Except for the third argument, which the Orissa High Court reproduced in its conclusion, it did not engage with any of the petitioner’s argument in any significant manner. Thus, one is unsure of what is the exact meaning of the phrase ‘on their own account’ used in Section 17(5)(d) and its resultant scope. Neither is applicability of Article 14 to the impugned set of facts clear even though the petitioner made elaborate arguments on both counts.  

Finally, it is worth noting that the Orissa High Court hardly provides any space to the State’s arguments and only cites relevant judgments relied on by the State. As a result, one can only gather that the State was arguing that ITC can only be claimed if the statutory conditions are met and the relevant conditions cannot be assailed as unconstitutional only because the tax set off is denied to the taxpayers. 

Way Forward 

The Revenue has filed an appeal against the Orissa High Court’s judgment and the approach that the Supreme Court will adopt is of course difficult to predict. But it is safe to say that a conservative approach wherein the legislature is provided a wide leeway in enacting tax laws is unlikely to lead to a conclusion that aligns with the Orissa High Court. Though such an interpretive approach would not be novel, but in line with well-entrenched jurisprudence. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court’s bench adjudicating the case is persuaded by the advocates in question that the provision in question infringes on a Fundamental Right, e.g., Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution or falls foul of Article 14 then there is a possibility of the Supreme Court reading down the provision akin to the Orissa High Court’s opinion. Irrespective, I will update the latest developments on this case via another blog post.  

[1] Safari Retreats Pvt Ltd v Chief Commissioner of GST [2019] 105 taxmann.com 324. 

[2] Eicher Motors Ltd v Union of India (1999) 2 SCC 361. 

Delhi High Court Orders Refund of Illegally Collected GST

by

The Delhi High Court in a recent order[1] followed the Gujarat High Court’s judgment in M/s Cosmol Energy Private Limited case[2] wherein it held that Section 54, CGST Act, 2017 is not applicable for illegally collected GST or GST paid under a mistake. Section 54 prescribes an outer time limit of two years for filing an application for refund and the High Court held that the said time limit would not apply in the impugned case since the assessee was under the mistaken belief that its services were chargeable to GST.  

Facts 

The petitioner in the impugned case, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (‘DMRC’) provided services to Surat Municipal Corporation wherein it prepared a detailed project report for the purpose of development of a rail project in the City of Surat. The invoice raised by DMRC was of Rs 19,04,520/- and it included GST of Rs 2,90,520/-. However, the City of Surat paid DMRC only Rs 16,14,000/- and did not pay the GST amount included in the invoice by DMRC. 

However, DMRC to ensure compliance with its statutory obligations paid a sum of Rs 2,90,520/- as GST to the Revenue Department. DMRC was latter informed by the Surat Municipal Corporation that the services billed by it were not exigible to GST under the relevant Notification, i.e., Notification 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. DMRC there after filed an application for refund which was rejected by the Revenue Department on the ground that the application was filed after two years had elapsed.

DMRC’s argument against the rejection of its refund application was that it would amount to violation of Article 265 of the Constitution since it would amount to collection of tax without the authority of law. 

Delhi High Court Relies on M/s Cosmol Energy Case

The Gujarat High Court in M/s Cosmol Energy case upheld the petitioner’s claim for refund of ocean freight paid on reverse charge basis after Supreme Court in Mohit Minerals case declared the said levy to be unconstitutional. The petitioner’s application for refund of Integrated GST was refused on the ground that it was filed after the relevant date prescribed under Section 54, CGST Act, 2017 similar to the facts of the impugned case. In M/s Cosmol Energy case, the Gujarat High Court held that: 

Section 54 of the CGST Act is applicable only for claiming refund of any tax paid under the provisions of the CGST Act and/or the GGST Act. The amount collected by the Revenue without the authority of law is not considered as tax collected by them and, therefore, Section 54 is not applicable. (para 7) 

The Gujarat High Court also quoted Article 265 of the Constitution to state that no tax shall be collected and levied except by authority of law and the State was bound to refund the tax collected illegally. 

In the impugned case, the Delhi High Court relied on the Gujarat High Court’s observations in M/s Cosmol Energy case, noted the fact that the said decision had not been appealed against by the State, indicating the State’s acceptance of it, and observed that DMRC was not liable to pay GST on the services rendered by it and the GST deposited by the DMRC ‘on an erroneous belief that payment for services rendered by it were chargeable to tax, cannot be retained by the respondents.’ (para 12) The High Court was categorical in its conclusion that Section 54 does not apply where GST is not chargeable and it is established by the assessee that an amount has been deposited under a mistake of law. 

Conclusion 

It is one of the fundamental tenets of the Constitution that no tax can be levied and collected except by the authority of law as succinctly stated in Article 265 of the Constitution. The Delhi High Court has reiterated a long line of jurisprudence, but the law on the point remains at a stage of infancy under GST. Hopefully, the combined effect of the Gujarat High Court and the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court would provide greater clarity to the taxpayers going forward. 

[1] Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd v Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II and Ors 2023: DHC: 6874:DB. 

[2] Cosmol Energy Private Limited v State of Gujarat 2020 (12) TR 4336.

LinkedIn