Compendium of GST Cases with Summary by Bloomsbury India Professional

Contents at a glance About the authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

TABLE OF CASES Table of cases – Alphabetically. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Table of cases – Topic-wise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii Table of cases – Authority-wise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xlv Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lix PART I

GENERAL MATTERS Chapter 1

Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity. . . 3 PART II

THE CENTRAL/STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 Chapter 1

Levy and Collection of Tax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Chapter 2

Time and Value of Supply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Chapter 3

Input Tax Credit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Chapter 4

Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Chapter 5

Accounts and Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Chapter 6

Returns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

Chapter 7

Payment of Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Chapter 8

Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Chapter 9

Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

Chapter 10

Demand and Recovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

Chapter 11

Advance Ruling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Chapter 12

Appeals and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537

Chapter 13

Offences and penalties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 xiii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary

Chapter 14

Transitional provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659

Chapter 15

Miscellaneous Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681

Chapter 16

Anti-profiteering Measure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 PART III

INTEGRATED GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACT, 2017 Chapter 1

Levy and Collection of Tax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717

Chapter 2

Determination of Nature of Supply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757

Chapter 3

Place of Supply of Goods/Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785

Chapter 4

Export/Import/Zero Rated Supplies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 PART IV

COMPENSATION TO STATES Chapter 1

The Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017. . 809

CBIC Instruction dated 23.5.2018 on suo motu Transfer of Authorisations . . . . . . . Master Instruction on Defence against Writ Petitions PILs relating to GST. . . . . . . List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meaning of Important Legal Maxims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiv

823 825 831 833

Table of cases – Alphabetically A & M Design & Print production, (2017) 4 GSTL 444 (Delhi) : (2018) 66 GST 390 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 253 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 193 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 A.K. Fastners v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 566 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 372 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 Abel Space Solution LLP, New Delhi v. Schindler India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, (2018) 6 TMI 687 (NAA) : (2018) 94 taxmann.com 163 (NAA). . . . . . . . . 711 Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 18 (Bombay) : (2018) 66 GST 359 (Bombay) : (2018) 2 TMI 766 (Bombay) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 187 (Bombay) : (2018) 51 GSTR 435 (Bombay) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668 Acrymold, In re, (2018) 5 TMI 597 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 102 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159, 390 Aditya Birla Retail Ltd., In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 403 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 700 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 105 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160, 391 Age Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant State Tax Officer, SGST Department, Kochi, (2018) 10 GSTL 16 (Kerala) : (2018) 66 GST 20 (Kerala) : (2018) 1 TMI 1116 (Kerala) : (2018) 89 taxmann.com 276 (Kerala) . . . . . 590 Agra Steels v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 247 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 1281 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675 Ahmednagar District Goat Rearing & Processing Co-op Federation Ltd., In re, (2018) 93 taxmann.com 267 (AAR - Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170, 445 Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 385 (Allahabad) : (2018) 6 TMI 108 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538, 576 Akansha Hair & Skin Care Herbal Unit Pvt. Ltd. , In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 214 (AAR- West Bengal) : (2018) 4 TMI 811 (AAR-West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 213 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145, 433 Akash Traders v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 496 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1140 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 Alukka Gold Palace v. State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 471 (Kerala) : (2018) 5 TMI 525 (Kerala) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 120 (Kerala) . . . . . . 212 Anappuram Steels Pvt. Ltd. v Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 567 (Kerala) : (2018) 2 TMI 1622 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 216 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . 619 Anguvilas M.V. Muthaiah Pillai Firm v. CCE, Trichy, 2018) 359 ELT 688 (Cestat, Chennai) : (2018) 9 GSTL 384 (Cestat, Chennai)(2018) 2 TMI 1659(Cestat, Chennai). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 xv

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Annapurna International v. State of UP, (2017) 6 GSTL 233 (Allahabad) : (2017) 11 TMI 1021 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Aphro Ecommerce Solutions Private Limited V. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 113 (Delhi) : (2018) 66 GST 392 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 750 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 192 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 Arihant Superstructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 67 GST 139 (Rajasthan) : (2018) 3 TMI 1268 (Rajasthan) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 236 (Rajasthan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239, 630 Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2017) 66 GST 554 (Kerala) : (2018) 3 TMI 1019 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 410 (Kerala). . . . . 625 Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, SGST Department, Ernakulam, (2018) 67 GST 290 (Kerala) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 67 (Kerala). . . . . 633 Bhumika Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 137 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 273 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 530 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 343 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638 Builders Association of Navi Mumbai v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 232 (Bombay) : (2018) 67 GST 334 (Bombay) : (2018) 4 TMI 461 (Bombay) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 134 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Cargill India (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 585 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 810 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 92 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151, 355 Carpo Power Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2018) 12 GSTL 248 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2018) 4 TMI 146 (Punjab & Haryana) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 CEAT Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 467 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 699 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 98 (AARMaharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131, 336 Chemico Synthetics Limited v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 449 (Delhi) : (2017) 64 GST 114 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 225 (Delhi) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796 CMS Info Systems Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 649 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 95 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . 146, 191, 352 Coimbatore Corporation Contractors Welfare Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 51 GSTR 253 (Madras) (2018) 65 GST 56 (Madras) : (2018) 3 TMI 1017 (Madras) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 258 (Madras) . . . . 77 Coimbatore Road Contractors Welfare Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2017) 7 GSTL 4 (Madras) : (2017) 12 TMI 515 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 318 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Coimbatore Road Contractors Welfare Association, Coimbatore v. Dr. C. Chandramouli , I.A.S., (2018) 9 GSTL 361 (Madras) : (2018) 2 TMI 1540 (Madras). . . . . 87 Commercial Tax Officer v. Madhu M.B., (2017)4 GSTL 437 (Kerala) : (2017) 64 GST 9 (Kerala) : (2017) 9 TMI xvi

Table of cases – Alphabetically 1044(Kerala) : (2017) 85 taxmann.com 172(Kerala) : (2017) 47 GSTR 167 (Kerala) : (2017) 105 VST 244 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 Continental India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 423 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 533 (Allahabad) : (2018) 1 TMI 1245 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 284 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666 Corestrength Traders India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Ernakulam, (2018) 67 GST 238 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 369 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 394 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 D. Pauls Travel & Tours Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 255 (Delhi) : (2017) 12 TMI 640 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Deepak & Co., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 598 (AAR-New Delhi) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 94 (AAR-New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163, 415 Devashish Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 18 (Delhi) : (2018) 1 TMI 276 (Delhi) : (2017) 88 taxmann.com 85 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . 720 Dhanaswaroopdas v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 209 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 344 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 423 (Kerala) . . . . . . 543 Dinesh Mohan Bharadwaj v. M/s Vrandavaneshwree Automotive Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 67 GST 429 (NAA) : (2018) 4 TMI 1377 (NAA) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 360 (NAA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 Dipak Logistics and Forwarders v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 GSTL 113 (Bombay) : (2018) 2 TMI 1475 (Bombay) : (2018) 90 taxmann. com 309 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai Founder, MY “Integrating Society India Net” NGGO v. Union Govt. of India, Through, The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs “CBEC”, (2018) 9 GSTL 57 (Bombay) : (2017) 9 TMI 389 (Bombay) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 273 (Bombay). . . . 3 EMC Ltd., In re, (2018) 5 TMI 964 (AAR-West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 200 (AAR-West Bengal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176, 519 Etten Craft Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 12 GSTL 273 (Kerala) : (2018) 5 TMI 1280 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 Evergreen Seamless Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 67 GST 235 (Bombay) : (2018) 4 TMI 409 (Bombay) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 382 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665 EVM Passenger Cars India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 66 GST 556 (Kerala) (2018) 4 TMI 579 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 366 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 624 FC Agrawal Coal Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 368 (Gujarat) : (2018) 66 GST 386 (Gujarat) : (2017) 10 TMI 880 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 213 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India, (2018) 359 ELT 97 (SC) : (2018) 65 GST 448(SC) : (2018) 89 taxmann.com 384 (SC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 xvii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Fermi Solar Farms (P.) Ltd., In Re, (2018) 5 TMI 963 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 96 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 327 General Equipments & Technology Suppliers v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 277 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 319 (Kerala). . . . . . . 634 General Transport v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 240 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 368 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 348 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598 Giriraj Renewables Private Limited, In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 538 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 854 (AAR- Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 93 (AAR- Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 GKB Lens (P.) Ltd., In re,, (2018) 6 TMI 72 (AAR - West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 477 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181, 529 Global Agency v. General Manger, South Western Railway GM Office, (2018) 66 GST 569 (Karnataka) : (2018) 3 TMI 389(Karnataka) : (2018) 91 taxamann.com 217 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Global Reach Education Services Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, (2018) 12 GSTL 387 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 67 GST 265 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 4 TMI 808 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann. com 211 (AAR, West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366, 788 GNG Enterprises v. State of U.P., (2017) 4 GSTL 436 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 550 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 44 (Allahabad) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 182 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 681 Gogte Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., In Re, (2018) 13 GSTL 114 (AAR, Karnataka) : (2018) 5 TMI 759 (AAR, Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 201 (AAR, Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358, 803 Hafele India (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 65 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 67 GST 473 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 646 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 104 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . 151, 354 Haryana Freight Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 13 GSTL14 (Allahabad) : (2018) 6 TMI 423 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Hind Energy and Coal Beneficiation (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 437 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 251 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 274 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GSTL 636 (Bombay) : (2018) 66 GST 636 (Bombay) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 69 (Bombay) : (2018) 3 TMI 1124(Bombay) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Hughes and Hughes Chem. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 369 (Delhi) : (2017) 11 TMI 1413 (Delhi) : Nila Infrastructure Limited v. Surat Municipal Corporation : (2018) 11 GSTL 275 (Gujarat) : (2017) 64 GST 597 (Gujarat) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 147 (Gujarat) : (2017) 11 TMI 809 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

xviii

Table of cases – Alphabetically IAC Electricals Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1701 (AAR - West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 476 (AAR - West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177, 523 Indus Integrated Information Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & CS, Kolkata, (2018) 12 GSTL 492 (Calcutta) : (2017) 4 TMI 593 (Calcutta). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677 Indus Towers Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 11 GSTL 229 (Kerala) : (2018) 66 GST 364 (Kerala) : (2018) 1 TMI 1313(Kerala) : (2018) 90 taxmann.com 417 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580 Iqra Roadways (India) Thru’ Its Prop. v. State of U.P., (2018) 8 GSTL 368 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 547 (Allahabad) : (2017) 11 TMI 1032 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 337 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548 J K Mittal & Company v. Union of India, (2017) 3 GSTL 321 (Delhi) : (2017) 62 GST 90(Delhi) : (2017) 7 TMI 542 (Delhi) : (2017) 83 taxmann.com 202 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 J K Mittal & Company v. Union of India, (2017) 352 ELT 430(Delhi) : (2017) 3 GSTL 433 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 138(Delhi) : (2017) 7 TMI 623 (Delhi) : (2017) 83 taxmann.com 281 (Delhi). . . . . . . 62 J K Mittal & Company v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 435 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 1165 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 J.J. Fabrics v. Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling Kerala State Goods & Service Tax, (2018) 4 TMI 203 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 402 (Kerala). . . . 518 Jaap Auto Distributors v. Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Chennai, (2017) 6 GSTL 262 (Madras) : (2017) 64 GST 447 (Madras) : (2017) 10 TMI 881 (Madras) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 55 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . 277, 295, 717 Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 8 GSTL 23 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 693 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 251 (Delhi). . . . . . . . 801 Joint Plant Committee, In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 89 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 67 GST 262 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 4 TMI 809 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 208 (AAR, West Bengal). . . . . . 211, 382 JSW Energy Ltd., In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 92 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 763 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 91 (AARMaharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130, 329 K C Pappu & Sons v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 281 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 345 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649 K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India, (2018) 1 GSTL 53 (Madras) : (2018) 66 GST 23 (Madras), : (2018) 1 TMI 815(Madras), : (2018) 89 taxmann. com 161(Madras),. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 337 (Madras) : (2018) 66 GST 638 (Madras) : (2018) 3 TMI 1451 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 416 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

xix

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary K.L. Johar & Co v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 236 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 366(Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 424 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594 Kakali Bera v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GST 584 (Calcutta) : (2018) 1 TMI 1003 (Calcutta) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 283 (Calcutta). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 526 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 458 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 58 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194, 432 Kanwar Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai, (2017) 6 GSTL 457 (Madras) : (2017) 11 TMI 1565 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 Kitex Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 234 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 270 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 318 (Kerala) . . . . . . 593 KNR Walayar Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (Works Contracts), Palakkad, (2018) 67 GSTL 116 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 1010 (Kerala). . . . . 238 KTL (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 132 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 607 (Allahabad) : (2018) 3 TMI 679 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 1 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 Kumar Gandharv v. KRBL Ltd., (2018) 67 GST 574 (NAA) : (2018) 5 TMI 1760 (NAA) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 149 (NAA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706 Kumar Traders and Company v. State of Assam, (2017) 4 GSTL 120 (Guwahati) : (2017) 9 TMI 749 (Guwahati). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Kundan Care Products Limited; Augmont Enterprises Private Limited; Zaveri and Company Private Limited; Sunanda Polymers; Shri Sai Vishwas Polymers; Khandwala Enterprises Private Limited; Diamond Forever International v. Union of India & Anr., (2017) 4 GSTL 118 (Delhi) : (2017) 64 GST 12(Delhi) : (2017) 8 TMI 1142(Delhi) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 251(Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 140 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 256 (Allahabad) : (2018) 3 TMI 1318 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290, 629 Lal Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, (2018) 67 GST 280 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 379 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657 Level 10 Retail Venture v. State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GSTL 144 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 346 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 258 (Kerala) . . . . . . 557 Liberty Chemtrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 353 (Gujarat) : (2018) 6 TMI 109 (Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743 Loka Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 117 (Allahabad) : 2018 (6) TMI 457 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 M. Bagulayan v. Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise, (2018) 66 GST 363 (Madras) : (2018) 2 TMI 194 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 188 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

Table of cases – Alphabetically M.H. Industries v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 553 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 202 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 373 (Kerala) . . . . . . 626 M.K. Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 545 (Allahabad) : (2017) 12 TMI 342 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 320 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559 M/s Ascics Trading Company v. The Assistant State Tax Officer, The State of Kerala, (2017) 6 GSTL 385 (Kerala) : (2017) 10 TMI 831(Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 282 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 M/s Ascics Trading Company v. The Assistant State Tax Officer, The State of Kerala, (2017) 6 GSTL 385 (Kerala) : (2017) 10 TMI 831 (Kerala) : (2017) 91 taxmann.com 282 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 M/s Radhey Lal Jaiprakash Neadarganj Dadri v. State Of U.P, (2017) 6 GSTL 234 (Allahabad) : (2017) 11 TMI 1022 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 M/s Rajashri Foods et. Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1651 (AAR – Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 417 (AAR-Karnataka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173, 473 M/s Sayre Therapeutics Private limited., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1737 (AAR Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 418 (AAR-Karnataka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154, 377 M/s Skilltech Engineers & Contractors Private Limited, In re., (2018) 6 TMI 111 (AAR- Karnataka) : (2018) 94 taxmann.com 20(AAR-Karnataka) . . . 155, 373 M/s Tathagat Health Care Centre LLP, In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1704 (AARKarnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 419 (AAR-Karnataka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156, 387 M/s. Caltech Polymers Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 350 (AARKerala) : (2018) 67 GST 95 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 582 (AARKerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 142 (AAR-Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162, 393 M/s. M.J.S. Enterprises, M/s H.B. Enterprises, M/s Royal Automobiles, M/s M.G. Automobiles, M/s S.A. Automobiles, M/s T.S. Enterprises, M/s Indus Steel Traders, M/s M.M. Enterprises, M/s A.M.K. Enterprises, M/s A.J. Enterprises, M/s Farhan Steel v. The Controller of Stores & Purchase, The Managing Director Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, The State of Karnataka, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (2017) 6 GSTL 152 (Karnataka) : (2017) 64 GST 71 (Karnataka) : (2017) 9 TMI 1301 (Karnataka) : (2017) 86 taxmann. com 54 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. v. Sate of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 4 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 373 (Allahabad) : (2018) 1 TMI 950 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 214 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., In re, (2018) 5 TMI 1332 (AAR – Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 266 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . 175, 481 Manoj Kumar v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 241 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 347 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 422 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 Manu International v. State of U.P., (2018) 9 GSTL 4 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2TMI 39 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 211 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . 201, 232, 273 xxi

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Mascot Entrade (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 9 GSTL 5 (Gauhati) : (2018) 66 GST 246 (Gauhati) : (2018) 4 TMI 269 (Gauhati) : (2018) 90 taxmann.com 223 (Gauhati) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Meenu Traders v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 17 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 273(Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. V. State of U.P., (2018) 8 GSTL 28 (Allahabad) : (2017) 10 TMI 784 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 245 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P, (2017) 4 GSTL 445 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 434 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 1141(Allahabad) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 254(Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 231, 270 Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P, (2017) 5 GSTL 368 (Allahabad) : (2018) 65 GST 137 (Allahabad) : (2017) 10 TMI 1017 (Allahabad) : (2017) 88 taxmann.com 155 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Modern Traders v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 7 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1076 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642 Mohd. Yunush v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 242 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 1282 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 433 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 250 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 114 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 427 (Delhi) : (2017) 8 TMI 1194 (Delhi) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 114 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 427 (Delhi) : (2017) 8 TMI 1194 (Delhi) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Mohit Minerals Private Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 433 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 250 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 424 (Gujarat) : (2018) 2 TMI 770 (Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724 N.C. Varghese , In re, (2018) 67 GST 98 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 581 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 143 (AAR- Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Narendra Plastic (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 439 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 414 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 674 (Delhi) : (2017) 85 taxmann.com 153 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791 National Plastic Industries Ltd., In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 445 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 528 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 101 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430, 165 Navyug Air Conditioning v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 288 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 886 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 18 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 xxii

Table of cases – Alphabetically Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation, (2018) 11 GSTL 275 (Gujarat) : (2017) 64 GST 597 (Gujarat) : (2018) 11 TMI 809 (Gujarat) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 147 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Nirmal Constructions v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 7 GSTL 3 (Madhya Pradesh) : (2017) 12 TMI 514 (Madhya Pradesh) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 461 (Madhya Pradesh). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 183 Nuclear Healthcare Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 497 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 855 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 99 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128, 325 Oriental Metals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 556 (Kerala) : (2018) 3 TMI 1018 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 368 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 Padmavati Enterprises v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 124 (Bombay) : (2018) 3 TMI 480 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Photo Products Company (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 6 TMI 38 (AAR - West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 479 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178, 532 Plymark India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 630 (Kerala) : (2018) 3 TMI 901 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 54 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 621 Poonam Grah Nirman Pvt. Ltd. v Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 12 GSTL 6 (Kerala) : (2018) 67 GST 137 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann. com 288 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631 Powermech Diesels v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Kerala GST, Ernakulam, (2018) 13 GSTL 64 (Kerala) : (2018) 66 GST 577(Kerala) : (2018) 2 TMI 983 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 471 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 Pragati Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 9 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 272 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 Priyanka Enterprises v. Joint Commissioner of Customs, (2018) 66 GST 614 (Madras) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 53 (Madras) : (2018) 4 TMI 858 (Madras). . . . . . . . . 785 Proactive Plast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 580 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2 TMI 663 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 470 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606 Prompt Compusolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 278 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 383 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647 R.R. Agro Industries v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 582 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2 TMI 608 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 210 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602, 721 Raj Iron & Building Materialsv. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 19 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 373 (Allahabad) : (2018) 1 TMI 949 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 212 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572

xxiii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Rajaguru Spinning Mills Pvt. v. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, (2018) 66 GST 594 (Madras) : (2018) 1 TMI 948 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 194 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556 Rajasthan Foods Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, Case No. KAR ADRG 6/2018 (Yet to be reported) – AAR-Karnataka. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172, 466 Rajasthan Tax Consultant’s Association v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 447 (Rajasthan) : (2017) 63 GST 552 (Rajasthan) : (2017) 10 TMI 254 (Rajasthan) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 183 (Rajasthan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Rajeevan V.N. v. Central Tax Officer-1 Circle, Cochin, (2018) 66 GST 362 (Kerala) : (2018) 2 TMI 1717 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 195 (Kerala) . . . . . 210 Rashmi Hospitality Services Private Limited, In re, (2018) 5 TMI 1181 (AAR - Gujarat) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 309 (AAR- Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . 158, 385 Ravi Parameswaran Pillai v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 571 (Kerala) : 2018 2 TMI 1296 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 321 (Kerala). . . 618 Reliance Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 GSTL 133 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 579 (Allahabad) : (2018) 3 TMI 678 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 376(Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608 Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 647 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 100 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . 153, 371 Remark Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 12 GSTL 481 (Gujarat) (2018) 4 TMI 1292 (Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 Rod Retail Pvt. Ltd. , In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 206 (AAR, New Delhi) : (2018) 4 TMI 938 (AAR, New Delhi) : (2018) 92 taxmann. com 317 (AAR, New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397, 804 Sachdeva Overseas v. State of U.P, (2017) 4 GSTL 443 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 554 (Allahabad) : (2017) 10 TMI 252 (Allahabad) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 181 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Salasar Synthetics v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 396 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 388 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 319 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 Samaj Parivartana Samudaya. v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 10 GSTL 526 (Supreme Court) : (2017) 10 TMI 255 (Supreme Court) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 279 (Supreme Court). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74, 187 Sameer Mat Industries &Kaleel Mat Industries v State of Kerala, (2018) 10 GSTL 136 (Kerala) : (2018) 65 GST 59 (Kerala) : (2017) 12 TMI 202 (Kerala) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 337 (Kerala); . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283, 553 Samrat Carriers v. State of U.P., (2018) 11 GSTL 167 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 232 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 608 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 425 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 Samsung (India) Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow, (2018) 66 GST 1 (Allahabad) : (2017) 12 TMI 202 (Allahabad) : (2018) 90 taxmann.com 92 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 xxiv

Table of cases – Alphabetically Sandipkumar Kirankumar Sharma v. State Election Commission, (2018) 9 GSTL 363 (Gujarat) : (2018) 66 GST 376 (Gujarat) : (2018) 2 TMI 1539 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 189 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Sanjeev Sharma v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 261 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 1357 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Sapna Goods Carrier v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 539 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 142(Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 97 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 285 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570 Seth Prasad Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 494 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 531 (Allahadad) : (2018) 2 TMI 195 (Allahadad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 281 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 Shankar Mohan v. Intelligence Inspector, The Intelligence Officer, Commissioner Goods & Service Tax Authority, State of Kerala, (2018) 10 GSTL 211 (Kerala) : (2018) 66 GST 596 (Kerala) : (2018) 1 TMI 179 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 209 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566 Shree Raipur Cement Plant v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2018) 93 taxmann. com 409 (Chhattisgarh). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744 Shreenath Polyplast (P.) Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 809 (AARGujarat) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 178 (AAR-Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179, 320 Shri Sanjeev Sharma, In re, (2018) 4 TMI 1077 (AAR , New Delhi) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 494 (AAR - New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164, 180, 408 Shunson C.J. v. State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 552 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 580 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 411 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 Sika India Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, (2018) 12 GSTL 400 (AAR-West Bengal) : 2018 (4) TMI 812 (AAR-West Bengal) : [2018] 92 taxmann. com 210 (AAR-WEST BENGAL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Simple Rajendra Shukla, In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 463 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 97 (AAR- Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . 130, 331 Special Ashoka Beedi Works v. GST Officer, Madanpalle, (2018) 10 GSTL 212 (Andhra Pradesh) : (2018) 66 GST 597 (Andhra Pradesh : (2018) 3 TMI 739 (Andhra Pradesh) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 374 (Andhra Pradesh). . . . . . . 551 Sreepati Ranjan Gope & Sons, In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 392 (AARWestBengal) : (2018) 5 TMI 370 (AAR-West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 116 (AAR-West Bengal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174, 477 Sri Raghvendra Traders v. Government of Karnataka, (2018) 67 GST 463 (Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 235 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635 State of Gujarat v. Bharat Pest Control, (2018) 67 GST 439 (SC) : Giriraj Renewables Private Limited, In re : (2018) 5 TMI 854 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 93 (AAR- Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Sujaya Sadanandan v. Assistant Commissioner, Assessment, Special Circle, Commercial Taxes, Kannur, (2018) 67 GST 261 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 271(Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 347 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 xxv

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Surendra Steel Supply Company v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 118 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 76 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 118 (Allahabad). . . 653 Switching Avo Electro Power Ltd. In Re:, (2018) 13 GSTL 84 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 67 GST 449 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 4 TMI 810 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 223 (AAR, West Bengal). . . . . 157, 361, 784 Synthite Industries Ltd. v. Authority for Advance Rulings Kerala, (2018) 12 GSTL 395 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 67 GST 100 (AAR-Kerala) : 2018 (4) TMI 583 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 144 (AAR-Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 Tara Chand Saluja v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 20 (Delhi) : (2018) 5 TMI 275(Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Teesta Distributors v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 347 (Kerala) : (2018) 12 GSTL 145 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 1009 (Kerala) : [2018] 92 taxmann.com 332 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215, 683 Time to Time Logistics v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 259 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1007 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann. com 300 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564 Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 119 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 75(Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 277 (Allahabad). . . . . 650 UP Distillers Association v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 10 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 274 (Allahabad) : (2018) 94 taxmann.com 35 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Vardh Paper Products (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/GST, Lucknow, (2018) 5 TMI 698 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 340 (Allahabad). . . . 655 Vardh Paper Products (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/GST, (2018) 5 TMI 1392 (Supreme Court) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 341 ( Supreme Court). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656 Vikram Solar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 5 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 385 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1139 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 166 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 VPSSR Facilities, In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 116 (AAR-NewDelhi) : (2018) 5 TMI 904 (AAR - New Delhi) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 268 (AAR - New Delhi) . . . . . . . . 171, 471 Willowood Chemicals (P.) Ltd .v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GST 642 (Gujarat) : (2018) 3 TMI 1265 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 296 (Gujarat) . . . 674 WS Retail Services (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 356 ELT 56 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 63 GST 141(Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 7 TMI 667 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 92 (Punjab & Haryana). . . . 241, 757 Zarmina Israr Khan v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 446 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 555 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 249 (Delhi) : (2017) 86 taxmann. com 180 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Zebronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 382 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 134 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4) TMI 1074 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562 xxvi

Table of cases – Topic-wise

Table of cases – Topic-wise GOODS & SERVICE TAX: GENERAL MATTERS AND CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai Founder, MY “Integrating Society India Net” NGGO v. Union Govt. of India, Through, The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs “CBEC”, (2018) 9 GSTL 57 (Bombay) :(2017) 9 TMI 389 (Bombay) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 273 (Bombay). . . . . 3 GNG Enterprises v. State of U.P., (2017) 4 GSTL 436 (Allahabad) :(2017) 63 GST 550 (Allahabad) :(2017) 8 TMI 44 (Allahabad) :(2017) 86 taxmann.com 182 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 337 (Madras) :(2018) 66 GST 638 (Madras) :(2018) 3 TMI 1451 (Madras) :(2018) 91 taxmann. com 416 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Kakali Bera v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GST 584 (Calcutta) :(2018) 1 TMI 1003 (Calcutta) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 283 (Calcutta). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 114 (Delhi) :(2017) 63 GST 427 (Delhi) :(2017) 8 TMI 1194 (Delhi) :(2017) 84 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation, (2018) 11 GSTL 275 (Gujarat) :(2017) 64 GST 597 (Gujarat) :(2018) 11 TMI 809 (Gujarat) :(2017) 87 taxmann.com 147 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Nirmal Constructions v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 7 GSTL 3 (Madhya Pradesh) :(2017) 12 TMI 514 (Madhya Pradesh) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 461 (Madhya Pradesh). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Sandipkumar Kirankumar Sharma v. State Election Commission, (2018) 9 GSTL 363 (Gujarat) :(2018) 66 GST 376 (Gujarat) :(2018) 2 TMI 1539 (Gujarat) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 189 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAX Acrymold, In re, (2018) 5 TMI 597 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 102 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Aditya Birla Retail Ltd., In re, (2018) 5) TMI 700 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 105 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Ahmednagar District Goat Rearing & Processing Co-op Federation Ltd., In re, (2018) 93 taxmann.com 267 (AAR - Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

xxvii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Akansha Hair & Skin Care Herbal Unit Pvt. Ltd. , In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 214 (AAR- West Bengal) :(2018) 4 TMI 811 (AAR-West Bengal) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 213 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Builders Association of Navi Mumbai v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 232 (Bombay) :(2018) 67 GST 334 (Bombay) :(2018) 4 TMI 461 (Bombay) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 134 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Cargill India (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 5 TMI 810 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 92 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 CEAT Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 699 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 98 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 CMS Info Systems Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 649 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 95 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Coimbatore Corporation Contractors Welfare Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 51 GSTR 253 (Madras) (2018) 65 GST 56 (Madras) :(2018) 3 TMI 1017 (Madras) :(2017) 87 taxmann.com 258 (Madras) . . . . . 77 Coimbatore Road Contractors Welfare Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2017) 7 GSTL 4 (Madras) :(2017) 12 TMI 515 (Madras) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 318 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Coimbatore Road Contractors Welfare Association, Coimbatore v. Dr. C. Chandramouli , I.A.S., (2018) 9 GSTL 361 (Madras) :(2018) 2 TMI 1540 (Madras). . 87 Deepak & Co., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 598 (AAR-New Delhi) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 94 (AAR-New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 EMC Ltd., In re, (2018) 93 taxmann.com 200 (AAR-West Bengal) :(2018) 5 TMI 964 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India, (2018) 359 ELT 97 (SC) :(2018) 65 GST 448(SC) :(2018) 89 taxmann.com 384 (SC).90 Fermi Solar Farms (P.) Ltd., In Re, (2018) 5 TMI 963 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 96 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Global Agency v. General Manger, South Western Railway GM Office, (2018) 66 GST 569 (Karnataka) :(2018) 3 TMI 389(Karnataka) :(2018) 91 taxamann.com 217 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Hafele India (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 5TMI 646 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 104 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Hughes and Hughes Chem. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 369 (Delhi) :(2017) 11 TMI 1413 (Delhi) :Nila Infrastructure Limited v. Surat Municipal Corporation :(2018) 11 GSTL 275 (Gujarat) :(2017) 64 GST 597 (Gujarat) :(2017) 87 taxmann.com 147 (Gujarat) :(2017) 11 TMI 809 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 IAC Electricals Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1701 (AAR - West Bengal) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 476 (AAR - West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

xxviii

Table of cases – Topic-wise J K Mittal & Company v. Union of India, (2017) 3 GSTL 321 (Delhi) :(2017) 62 GST 90(Delhi) :(2017) 7 TMI 542 (Delhi) :(2017) 83 taxmann.com 202 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 J K Mittal & Company v. Union of India, (2017) 352 ELT 430(Delhi) :(2017) 3 GSTL 433 (Delhi) :(2017) 63 GST 138(Delhi) :(2017) 7 TMI 623 (Delhi) :(2017) 83 taxmann.com 281 (Delhi). . . . . . . . 62 JSW Energy Ltd., In re, (2018) 5 TMI 763 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 91 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 M/s Rajashri Foods et. Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1651 (AAR – Karnataka) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 417 (AAR-Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 M/s Sayre Therapeutics Private limited., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1737 (AAR Karnataka) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 418 (AAR-Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 M/s Skilltech Engineers & Contractors Private Limited, In re., (2018) 6 TMI 111 (AAR- Karnataka) :(2018) 94 taxmann.com 20(AAR-Karnataka). . . . . . . . 155 M/s Tathagat Health Care Centre LLP, In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1704 (AARKarnataka) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 419 (AAR-Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 M/s. Caltech Polymers Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 4 TMI 582 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 142 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 M/s. M.J.S. Enterprises, M/s H.B. Enterprises, M/s Royal Automobiles, M/s M.G. Automobiles, M/s S.A. Automobiles, M/s T.S. Enterprises, M/s Indus Steel Traders, M/s M.M. Enterprises, M/s A.M.K. Enterprises, M/s A.J. Enterprises, M/s Farhan Steel v. The Controller of Stores & Purchase, The Managing Director Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, The State of Karnataka, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (2017) 6 GSTL 152 (Karnataka) :(2017) 64 GST 71 (Karnataka) :(2017) 9 TMI 1301 (Karnataka) :(2017) 86 taxmann. com 54 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., In re, (2018) 5 TMI 1332 (AAR – Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 266 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . 175 N.C. Varghese , In re, (2018) 67 GST 98 (AAR-Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 581 (AAR-Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 143 (AAR- Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 National Plastic Industries Ltd., In re, (2018) 5 TMI 528 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 101 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Nuclear Healthcare Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 855 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 99 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Photo Products Company (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 6 TMI 38 (AAR - West Bengal). . . . . . 178 Rajasthan Foods Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, Case No. KAR ADRG 6/2018 (Yet to be reported) – AAR-Karnataka. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Rajasthan Tax Consultant’s Association v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 447 (Rajasthan) :(2017) 63 GST 552 (Rajasthan) :(2017) 10 TMI 254 (Rajasthan) :(2017) 86 taxmann.com 183 (Rajasthan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 xxix

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Rashmi Hospitality Services Private Limited, In re, (2018) 5 TMI 1181 (AAR - Gujarat) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 309 (AAR-Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 647 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 100 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Samaj Parivartana Samudaya. v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 10 GSTL 526 (Supreme Court) :(2017) 10 TMI 255 (Supreme Court) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 279 (Supreme Court). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Samsung (India) Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow, (2018) 66 GST 1 (Allahabad) :(2017) 12 TMI 202 (Allahabad) :(2018) 90 taxmann.com 92 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Shri Sanjeev Sharma, In re, (2018) 4 TMI 1077 (AAR-New Delhi) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 494 (AAR - NewDelhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Sika India Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, (2018) 12 GSTL 400 (AAR-West Bengal) :2018 (4) TMI 812 (AAR-West Bengal) :[2018] 92 taxmann. com 210 (AAR-WEST BENGAL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Simple Rajendra Shukla, In re, (2018) 93 taxmann.com 97 (AAR- Maharashtra) . . . . . . 130 Sreepati Ranjan Gope & Sons, In re, (2018) 5 TMI 370 (AAR-West Bengal) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 116 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 State of Gujarat v. Bharat Pest Control, (2018) 67 GST 439 (SC) :Giriraj Renewables Private Limited, In re :(2018) 5 TMI 854 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 93 (AAR- Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Switching Avo Electro Power Ltd., In re., (2018) 4 TMI 810 (AAR-West Bengal) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 223 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 UP Distillers Association v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 10 (Allahabad) :(2018) 5 TMI 274 (Allahabad) :(2018) 94 taxmann.com 35 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 VPSSR Facilities, In re, (2018) 5 TMI 904 (AAR - New Delhi) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 268 (AAR - New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Zarmina Israr Khan v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 446 (Delhi) :(2017) 63 GST 555 (Delhi) :(2017) 10 TMI 249 (Delhi) :(2017) 86 taxmann. com 180 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

TIME AND VALUE OF SUPPLY GKB Lens (P.) Ltd., In re., (2018) 6 TMI 72 (AAR - West Bengal) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 477 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Shreenath Polyplast (P.) Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 809 (AARGujarat) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 178 (AAR-Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Shri Sanjeev Sharma, In re, (2018) 4 TMI 1077 (AAR , New Delhi) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 494 (AAR - New Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

xxx

Table of cases – Topic-wise

INPUT TAX CREDIT CMS Info Systems Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 649 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 95 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 D. Pauls Travel & Tours Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 255 (Delhi) :(2017) 12 TMI 640 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 526 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 5 TMI 458 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 58 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Mohit Minerals Private Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 433 (Delhi) :(2017) 10 TMI 250 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Nirmal Constructions v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 7 GSTL 3 (Madhya Pradesh) :(2017) 12 TMI 514 (Madhya Pradesh) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 461 (Madhya Pradesh). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Samaj Parivartana Samudaya. v.State of Karnataka, (2018) 10 GSTL 526 (Supreme Court) :(2017) 10 TMI 255 (Supreme Court) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 279 (Supreme Court). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Tara Chand Saluja v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 20 (Delhi) :(2018) 5 TMI 275(Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

REGISTRATION Alukka Gold Palace v. State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 471 (Kerala) :(2018) 5 TMI 525 (Kerala) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 120 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 212 Annapurna International v. State of UP, (2017) 6 GSTL 233 (Allahabad) :(2017) 11 TMI 1021 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 J.K. Mittal & Company v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 435 (Delhi) :(2017) 9 TMI 1165 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Joint Plant Committee, In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 89 (AAR, West Bengal) :(2018) 67 GST 262 (AAR, West Bengal) :(2018) 4 TMI 809 (AAR, West Bengal) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 208 (AAR, West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . 211 Manu International v. State of U.P., (2018) 9 GSTL 4 (Allahabad) :(2018) 2TMI 39 (Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 211 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. V. State of U.P., (2018) 8 GSTL 28 (Allahabad) :(2017) 10 TMI 784 (Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 245 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P, (2017) 4 GSTL 445 (Allahabad) :(2017) 63 GST 434 (Allahabad) :(2017) 8 TMI 1141(Allahabad) :(2017) 84 taxmann.com 254(Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P, (2017) 5 GSTL 368 (Allahabad) :(2018) 65 GST 137 (Allahabad) :(2017) 10 TMI 1017 (Allahabad) :(2017) 88 taxmann.com 155 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 xxxi

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Rajeevan V.N. v. Central Tax Officer-1 Circle, Cochin, (2018) 66 GST 362 (Kerala) :(2018) 2 TMI 1717 (Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 195 (Kerala) . . . . . . 210 Sachdeva Overseas v. State of U.P, (2017) 4 GSTL 443 (Allahabad) :(2017) 63 GST 554 (Allahabad) :(2017) 10 TMI 252 (Allahabad) :(2017) 86 taxmann.com 181 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS Teesta Distributors v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 347 (Kerala) :(2018) 12 GSTL 145 (Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 1009 (Kerala) :[2018] 92 taxmann.com 332 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

RETURNS Arihant Superstructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 67 GST 139 (Rajasthan) :(2018) 3 TMI 1268 (Rajasthan) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 236 (Rajasthan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 KNR Walayar Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (Works Contracts), Palakkad, (2018) 67 GSTL 116 (Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 1010 (Kerala) . . 238 M/s Radhey Lal Jaiprakash Neadarganj Dadri v. State Of U.P, (2017) 6 GSTL 234 (Allahabad) :(2017) 11 TMI 1022 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Manu International v. State of U.P., (2018) 9 GSTL 4 (Allahabad) :(2018) 2TMI 39 (Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 211 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P, (2017) 4 GSTL 445 (Allahabad) :(2017) 63 GST 434 (Allahabad) :(2017) 8 TMI 1141(Allahabad) :(2017) 84 taxmann.com 254(Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Padmavati Enterprises v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 124 (Bombay) :(2018) 3 TMI 480 (Bombay) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Sujaya Sadanandan v. Assistant Commissioner, Assessment, Special Circle, Commercial Taxes, Kannur, (2018) 67 GST 261 (Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 271(Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 347 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

PAYMENT OF TAX A & M Design & Print production, (2017) 4 GSTL 444 (Delhi) :(2018) 66 GST 390 (Delhi) :(2017) 10 TMI 253 (Delhi) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 193 (Delhi). 271 M. Bagulayan v. Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise, (2018) 66 GST 363 (Madras) :(2018) 2 TMI 194 (Madras) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 188 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Manu International v. State of U.P., (2018) 9 GSTL 4 (Allahabad) :(2018) 2TMI 39 (Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 211 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

xxxii

Table of cases – Topic-wise Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P, (2017) 4 GSTL 445 (Allahabad) :(2017) 63 GST 434 (Allahabad) :(2017) 8 TMI 1141(Allahabad) :(2017) 84 taxmann.com 254(Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 WS Retail Services (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 356 ELT 56 (Punjab & Haryana) :(2017) 63 GST 141(Punjab & Haryana) :(2017) 7 TMI 667 (Punjab & Haryana) :(2017) 84 taxmann.com 92 (Punjab & Haryana) . . . . . . . . 241

ASSESSMENT Jaap Auto Distributors v. Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Chennai, (2017) 6 GSTL 262 (Madras) :(2017) 64 GST 447 (Madras) :(2017) 10 TMI 881 (Madras) :(2017) 87 taxmann.com 55 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

INSPECTION, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND ARREST K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India, (2018) 1 GSTL 53 (Madras) :(2018) 66 GST 23 (Madras), :(2018) 1 TMI 815(Madras), :(2018) 89 taxmann. com 161(Madras),. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 Kumar Traders and Company v. State of Assam, (2017) 4 GSTL 120 (Guwahati) :(2017) 9 TMI 749 (Guwahati) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 140 (Allahabad) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 256 (Allahabad) :(2018) 3 TMI 1318 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 Navyug Air Conditioning v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 288 (Allahabad) :(2018) 4 TMI 886 (Allahabad) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 18 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Sameer Mat Industries &Kaleel Mat Industries v State of Kerala, (2018) 10 GSTL 136 (Kerala) :(2018) 65 GST 59 (Kerala) :(2017) 12 TMI 202 (Kerala) :(2017) 87 taxmann.com 337 (Kerala);. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

DEMAND AND RECOVERY Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GSTL 636 (Bombay) :(2018) 66 GST 636 (Bombay) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 69 (Bombay) :(2018) 3 TMI 1124(Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Jaap Auto Distributors v. Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Chennai, (2017) 6 GSTL 262 (Madras), :(2017) 64 GST 447 (Madras) :(2017) 10 TMI 881 (Madras) :(2017) 87 taxmann.com 55 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Mascot Entrade (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 9 GSTL 5 (Gauhati) :(2018) 66 GST 246 (Gauhati) :(2018) 4 TMI 269 (Gauhati) :(2018) 90 taxmann.com 223 (Gauhati). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Mohd. Yunush v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 242 (Allahabad) :(2018) 5 TMI 1282 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 xxxiii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Remark Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 12 GSTL 481 (Gujarat) (2018) 4 TMI 1292 (Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

ADVANCE RULING Acrymold, In re, (2018) 5 TMI 597 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 102 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390 Aditya Birla Retail Ltd., In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 403 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 5 TMI 700 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 105 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 Ahmednagar District Goat Rearing & Processing Co-op Federation Ltd., In re, (2018) 93 taxmann.com 267 (AAR - Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 Akansha Hair & Skin Care Herbal Unit Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 214 (AAR-West Bengal) :(2018) 4 TMI 811 (AAR- West Bengal) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 213 (AAR- West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 Cargill India (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 585 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 5 TMI 810 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 92 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 CEAT Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 467 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 5 TMI 699 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 98 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . 336 CMS Info Systems Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 649 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 95 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 Deepak & Co., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 598 (AAR-New Delhi) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 94 (AAR-New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 EMC Ltd., In re, (2018) 5 TMI 964 (AAR-West Bengal) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 200 (AAR-West Bengal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519 Etten Craft Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 12 GSTL 273 (Kerala) :(2018) 5 TMI 1280 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 Fermi Solar Farms (P.) Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 963 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 96 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Giriraj Renewables Private Limited, In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 538 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 5 TMI 854 (AAR- Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 93 (AAR- Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 GKB Lens (P.) Ltd., In re,, (2018) 6 TMI 72 (AAR - West Bengal) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 477 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 Global Reach Education Services Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 387 (AAR,WestBengal) :(2018) 67 GST 265 (AAR,WestBengal) :(2018) 4 TMI808 (AAR,WestBengal) :(2018) 92 taxamann.com 211 (AAR, West Bengal). . . 366 Gogte Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., In Re, (2018) 5 TMI 759 (AAR, Karnataka) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 201 (AAR, Karnataka) . . . . . . . . . . 358

xxxiv

Table of cases – Topic-wise Hafele India (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 65 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 67 GST 473 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 5 TMI 646 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 104 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . 354 IAC Electricals Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1701 (AAR - West Bengal) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 476 (AAR - West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523 J.J. Fabrics v. Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling Kerala State Goods & Service Tax, (2018) 4 TMI 203 (Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 402 (Kerala). . . . . 518 Joint Plant Committee, In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 89 (AARWestBengal) :(2018) 67 GST 262 (AAR-WestBengal) :(2018) 4 TMI 809 (AAR-West Bengal) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 208 (AAR- West Bengal). . . . . . . 382 JSW Energy Ltd., In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 92 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 5 TMI 763 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 91 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . 329 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 526 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 5 TMI 458 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 58 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432 M/s Rajashri Foods et. Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1651 (AAR – Karnataka) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 417 (AAR-Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473 M/s Sayre Therapeutics Private limited., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1737 (AAR Karnataka) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 418 (AAR-Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 M/s Skilltech Engineers & Contractors Private Limited, In re., (2018) 6 TMI 111 (AAR- Karnataka) :(2018) 94 taxmann.com 20(AAR-Karnataka). . . . . . . . 373 M/s Tathagat Health Care Centre LLP, In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1704 (AARKarnataka) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 419 (AAR-Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 M/s. Caltech Polymers Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 350 (AARKerala) :(2018) 67 GST 95 (AAR-Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 582 (AARKerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 142 (AAR-Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., In re, (2018) 5 TMI 1332 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 266 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . 481 National Plastic Industries Ltd., In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 445 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 5 TMI 528 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 101 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430 Nuclear Healthcare Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 497 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 5 TMI 855 (AAR-Maharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 99 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Photo Products Company (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 6 TMI 38 (AAR - West Bengal) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 479 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532 Rajasthan Foods Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, Case No. KAR ADRG 6/2018 (Yet to be reported). . . 466 Rashmi Hospitality Services Private Limited, In re, (2018) 5 TMI 1181 (AAR - Gujarat) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 309 (AAR- Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

xxxv

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 647 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 100 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Rod Retail Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 206 (AAR, New Delhi) :(2018) 4 TMI 938 (AAR,NewDelhi) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 317 (AAR, New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 Sanjeev Sharma v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 261 (Delhi) :(2017) 9 TMI 1357 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Shreenath Polyplast (P.) Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 809 (AARGujarat) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 178 (AAR-Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 Shri Sanjeev Sharma, In re, (2018) 4 TMI 1077 (AAR- New Delhi) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 97 (AAR – New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 Simple Rajendra Shukla, In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 463 (AARMaharashtra) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 97 (AAR- Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Sreepati Ranjan Gope & Sons, In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 392 (AARWestBengal) :(2018) 5 TMI 370 (AAR-West Bengal) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 116 (AAR-West Bengal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477 Switching AvoElectro Power Ltd., In re., (2018) 13 GSTL 84 (AARWestBengal) :(2018) 67 GST 449 (AAR-WestBengal) :(2018) 4 TMI810 (AAR-WestBengal) :(2018) 92 taxamann.com 223 (AAR-West Bengal). . . 361 VPSSR Facilities, In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 116 (AAR-NewDelhi) :(2018) 5 TMI 904 (AAR - New Delhi) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 268 (AAR - New Delhi). . . . 471

APPEALS AND REVISION Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 385 (Allahabad) :(2018) 6 TMI 108 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 Anguvilas M.V. Muthaiah Pillai Firm v. CCE, Trichy, 2018) 359 ELT 688 (Cestat, Chennai) :(2018) 9 GSTL 384 (Cestat, Chennai)(2018) 2 TMI 1659(Cestat, Chennai). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537

OFFENCES AND PENALTIES A.K. Fastners v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 566 (Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 372 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 Age Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant State Tax Officer, SGST Department, Kochi, (2018) 10 GSTL 16 (Kerala) :(2018) 66 GST 20 (Kerala) :(2018) 1 TMI 1116 (Kerala) :(2018) 89 taxmann.com 276 (Kerala) . . . . . . 590 Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 385 (Allahabad) :(2018) 6 TMI 108 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 Akash Traders v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 496 (Allahabad) :(2018) 4 TMI 1140 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578

xxxvi

Table of cases – Topic-wise Anappuram Steels Pvt. Ltd. v Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 567 (Kerala) :(2018) 2 TMI 1622 (Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 216 (Kerala). . . 619 Arihant Superstructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 67 GST 139 (Rajasthan) :(2018) 3 TMI 1268 (Rajasthan) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 236 (Rajasthan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630 Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2017) 66 GST 554 (Kerala) :(2018) 3 TMI 1019 (Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 410 (Kerala). . . 625 Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, SGST Department, Ernakulam, (2018) 67 GST 290 (Kerala) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 67 (Kerala). . . . . 633 Bhumika Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 137 (Allahabad) :(2018) 67 GST 273 (Allahabad) :(2018) 4 TMI 530 (Allahabad) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 343 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638 Commercial Tax Officer v. Madhu M.B., (2017)4 GSTL 437 (Kerala) :(2017) 64 GST 9 (Kerala) :(2017) 9 TMI 1044(Kerala) :(2017) 85 taxmann.com 172(Kerala) :(2017) 47 GSTR 167 (Kerala) :(2017) 105 VST 244 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 Corestrength Traders India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Ernakulam, (2018) 67 GST 238 (Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 369 (Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 394 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 Dhanaswaroopdas v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 209 (Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 344 (Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 423 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 543 Dipak Logistics and Forwarders v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 GSTL 113 (Bombay) :(2018) 2 TMI 1475 (Bombay) :(2018) 90 taxmann.com 309 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 EVM Passenger Cars India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 66 GST 556 (Kerala) (2018) 4 TMI 579 (Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 366 (Kerala). . . . . . . . 624 General Equipments & Technology Suppliers v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 277 (Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 319 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 634 General Transport v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 240 (Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 368 (Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 348 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598 Haryana Freight Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 13 GSTL14 (Allahabad) :(2018) 6 TMI 423 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Indus Towers Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 11 GSTL 229 (Kerala) :(2018) 66 GST 364 (Kerala) :(2018) 1 TMI 1313(Kerala) :(2018) 90 taxmann.com 417 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580 Iqra Roadways (India) Thru’ Its Prop. v. State of U.P., (2018) 8 GSTL 368 (Allahabad) :(2018) 66 GST 547 (Allahabad) :(2017) 11 TMI 1032 (Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 337 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548 K C Pappu & Sons v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 281 (Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 345 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649

xxxvii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary K.L. Johar & Co v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 236 (Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 366(Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 424 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594 Kitex Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 234 (Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 270 (Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 318 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 593 L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 140 (Allahabad) :(2018) 3 TMI 1318 (Allahabad) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 256 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629 Lal Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, (2018) 67 GST 280 (Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 379 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657 Level 10 Retail Venture v. State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GSTL 144 (Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 346 (Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 258 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 557 Loka Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 117 (Allahabad) :2018 (6) TMI 457 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 M.H. Industries v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 553 (Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 202 (Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 373 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 626 M.K. Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 545 (Allahabad) :(2017) 12 TMI 342 (Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 320 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559 M/s Ascics Trading Company v. The Assistant State Tax Officer, The State of Kerala, (2017) 6 GSTL 385 (Kerala) :(2017) 10 TMI 831(Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 282 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. v. Sate of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 4 (Allahabad) :(2018) 66 GST 373 (Allahabad) :(2018) 1 TMI 950 (Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 214 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 Manoj Kumar v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 241 (Allahabad) :(2018) 4 TMI 347 (Allahabad) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 422 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 Meenu Traders v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 17 (Allahabad) :(2018) 5 TMI 273(Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 Modern Traders v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 7 (Allahabad) :(2018) 4 TMI 1076 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642 Oriental Metals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 556 (Kerala) :(2018) 3 TMI 1018 (Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann. com 368 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 Plymark India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 630 (Kerala) :(2018) 3 TMI 901 (Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 54 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . 621 Poonam Grah Nirman Pvt. Ltd. v Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 12 GSTL 6 (Kerala) :(2018) 67 GST 137 (Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann. com 288 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631 Powermech Diesels v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Kerala GST, Ernakulam, (2018) 13 GSTL 64 (Kerala) :(2018) 66 GST 577(Kerala) :(2018) 2 TMI 983 (Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 471 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616

xxxviii

Table of cases – Topic-wise Pragati Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 9 (Allahabad) :(2018) 5 TMI 272 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 Proactive Plast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 580 (Allahabad) :(2018) 2 TMI 663 (Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 470 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606 Prompt Compusolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 278 (Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 383 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647 R.R. Agro Industries v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 582 (Allahabad) :(2018) 2 TMI 608 (Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 210 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602 Raj Iron & Building Materialsv. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 19 (Allahabad) :(2018) 66 GST 373 (Allahabad) :(2018) 1 TMI 949 (Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 212 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572 Rajaguru Spinning Mills Pvt. v. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, (2018) 66 GST 594 (Madras) :(2018) 1 TMI 948 (Madras) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 194 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556 Ravi Parameswaran Pillai v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 571 (Kerala) :2018 2 TMI 1296 (Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 321 (Kerala). . . . 618 Reliance Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 GSTL 133 (Allahabad) :(2018) 66 GST 579 (Allahabad) :(2018) 3 TMI 678 (Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 376(Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608 Sameer Mat Industries v. State of Kerala, (2018) 10 GSTL 136 (Kerala) :(2018) 65 GST 59 (Kerala) :(2017) 12 TMI 202 (Kerala) :(2017) 87 taxmann.com 337 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 Samrat Carriers v. State of U.P., (2018) 11 GSTL 167 (Allahabad) :(2018) 67 GST 232 (Allahabad) :(2018) 4 TMI 608 (Allahabad) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 425 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 Sapna Goods Carrier v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 539 (Allahabad) :(2018) 67 GST 142(Allahabad) :(2018) 4 TMI 97 (Allahabad) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 285 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570 Seth Prasad Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 494 (Allahabad) :(2018) 66 GST 531 (Allahadad) :(2018) 2 TMI 195 (Allahadad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 281 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 Shankar Mohan v. Intelligence Inspector, The Intelligence Officer, Commissioner Goods & Service Tax Authority, State of Kerala, (2018) 10 GSTL 211 (Kerala) :(2018) 66 GST 596 (Kerala) :(2018) 1 TMI 179 (Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 209 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566 Shunson C.J. v. State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 552 (Kerala) :(2018) 4 TMI 580 (Kerala) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 411 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627

xxxix

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Special Ashoka Beedi Works v. GST Officer, Madanpalle, (2018) 10 GSTL 212 (Andhra Pradesh) :(2018) 66 GST 597 (Andhra Pradesh :(2018) 3 TMI 739 (Andhra Pradesh) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 374 (Andhra Pradesh) . . . . . . . 551 Sri Raghvendra Traders v. Government of Karnataka, (2018) 67 GST 463 (Karnataka) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 235 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635 Surendra Steel Supply Company v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 118 (Allahabad) :(2018) 5 TMI 76 (Allahabad) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 118 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653 Time to Time Logistics v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 259 (Allahabad) :(2018) 4 TMI 1007 (Allahabad) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 300 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564 Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 119 (Allahabad) :(2018) 5 TMI 75(Allahabad) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 277 (Allahabad).650 Vardh Paper Products (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/GST, Lucknow, (2018) 5 TMI 698 (Allahabad) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 340 (Allahabad). 655 Vardh Paper Products (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/GST, (2018) 5 TMI 1392 (Supreme Court) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 341 ( Supreme Court). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656 Vikram Solar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 5 (Allahabad) :(2018) 67 GST 385 (Allahabad) :(2018) 4 TMI 1139 (Allahabad) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 166 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 Zebronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 382 (Allahabad) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 134 (Allahabad) :(2018) 4) TMI 1074 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 18 (Bombay) :(2018) 66 GST 359 (Bombay) :(2018) 2 TMI 766 (Bombay) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 187 (Bombay) :(2018) 51 GSTR 435 (Bombay).668 Agra Steels v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 247 (Allahabad) :(2018) 5 TMI 1281 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675 Continental India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 423 (Allahabad) :(2018) 66 GST 533 (Allahabad) :(2018) 1 TMI 1245 (Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 284 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666 Evergreen Seamless Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 67 GST 235 (Bombay) :(2018) 4 TMI 409 (Bombay) :(2018) 92 taxmann. com 382 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665 Indus Integrated Information Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & CS, Kolkata, (2018) 12 GSTL 492 (Calcutta) :(2017) 4 TMI 593 (Calcutta). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677

Table of cases – Topic-wise Kanwar Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai, (2017) 6 GSTL 457 (Madras) :(2017) 11 TMI 1565 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 KTL (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 132 (Allahabad) :(2018) 66 GST 607 (Allahabad) :(2018) 3 TMI 679 (Allahabad) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 1 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 Kundan Care Products Limited; Augmont Enterprises Private Limited; Zaveri and Company Private Limited; Sunanda Polymers; Shri Sai Vishwas Polymers; Khandwala Enterprises Private Limited; Diamond Forever International v. Union of India & Anr., (2017) 4 GSTL 118 (Delhi) :(2017) 64 GST 12(Delhi) :(2017) 8 TMI 1142(Delhi) :(2017) 84 taxmann.com 251(Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 Salasar Synthetics v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 396 (Delhi) :(2017) 9 TMI 388 (Delhi) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 319 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 Willowood Chemicals (P.) Ltd .v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GST 642 (Gujarat) :(2018) 3 TMI 1265 (Gujarat) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 296 (Gujarat) . . . . 674

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISION GNG Enterprises v. State of U.P., (2017) 4 GSTL 436 (Allahabad) :(2017) 63 GST 550 (Allahabad) :(2017) 8 TMI 44 (Allahabad) :(2017) 86 taxmann.com 182 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681 Teesta Distributors v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 347 (Kerala) :2018 (4) TMI 1009 (Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 332 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683

ANTI-PROFITEERING MEASURE Abel Space Solution LLP, New Delhi v. Schindler India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, (2018) 6 TMI 687 (NAA) :(2018) 94 taxmann.com 163 (NAA) . . . . . . . . . 711 Dinesh Mohan Bharadwaj v. M/s Vrandavaneshwree Automotive Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 67 GST 429 (NAA) :(2018) 4 TMI 1377 (NAA) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 360 (NAA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 Kumar Gandharv v. KRBL Ltd., (2018) 67 GST 574 (NAA) :(2018) 5 TMI 1760 (NAA) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 149 (NAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706

LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAX Carpo Power Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2018) 12 GSTL 248 (Punjab & Haryana) :(2018) 4 TMI 146 (Punjab & Haryana). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 Devashish Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 18 (Delhi) :(2018) 1 TMI 276 (Delhi) :(2017) 88 taxmann.com 85 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . 720

xli

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Jaap Auto Distributors v. Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Chennai, (2017) 6 GSTL 262 (Madras) :(2017) 64 GST 447 (Madras) :(2017) 10 TMI 881 (Madras) :(2017) 87 taxmann.com 55 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717 Liberty Chemtrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 353 (Gujarat) :(2018) 6 TMI 109 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743 Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 424 (Gujarat) :(2018) 2 TMI 770 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724 R.R. Agro Industries v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 582 (Allahabad) :(2018) 2 TMI 608(Allahabad) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 210 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 Shree Raipur Cement Plant v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2018) 93 taxmann. com 409 (Chhattisgarh). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744 Synthite Industries Ltd. v. Authority for Advance Rulings Kerala, (2018) 12 GSTL 395 (AAR-Kerala) :(2018) 67 GST 100 (AAR-Kerala) :2018 (4) TMI 583 (AAR-Kerala) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 144 (AAR-Kerala). . . . . . . . . . 726

DETERMINATION OF NATURE OF SUPPLY Switching Avo Electro Power Ltd. In Re:, (2018) 13 GSTL 84 (AAR, West Bengal) :(2018) 67 GST 449 (AAR, West Bengal) :(2018) 4 TMI 810 (AAR, West Bengal) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 223 (AAR, West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . 784 WS Retail Services (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 356 ELT 56 (Punjab & Haryana) :(2017) 63 GST 141 (Punjab & Haryana) :(2017) 7 TMI 667 (Punjab & Haryana) :(2017) 84 taxmann.com 92 (Punjab & Haryana) . . . . . . . . 757

PLACE OF SUPPLY OF GOODS/SERVICES Global Reach Education Services Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, (2018) 12 GSTL 387 (AAR, West Bengal) :(2018) 67 GST 265 (AAR, West Bengal) :(2018) 4 TMI 808 (AAR, West Bengal) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 211 (AAR, West Bengal). 788 Priyanka Enterprises v. Joint Commissioner of Customs, (2018) 66 GST 614 (Madras) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 53 (Madras) :(2018) 4 TMI 858 (Madras). . . 785

EXPORT/IMPORT/ZERO RATED SUPPLIES Aphro Ecommerce Solutions Private Limited V. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 113 (Delhi) :(2018) 66 GST 392 (Delhi) :(2017) 9 TMI 750 (Delhi) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 192 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 Chemico Synthetics Limited v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 449 (Delhi) :(2017) 64 GST 114 (Delhi) :(2017) 10 TMI 225 (Delhi) :(2017) 86 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796

xlii

Table of cases – Topic-wise Gogte Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., In Re, (2018) 13 GSTL 114 (AAR, Karnataka) :(2018) 5 TMI 759 (AAR, Karnataka) :(2018) 93 taxmann.com 201 (AAR, Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803 Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 8 GSTL 23 (Delhi) :(2017) 10 TMI 693 (Delhi) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 251 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . 801 M/s Ascics Trading Company v. The Assistant State Tax Officer, The State of Kerala, (2017) 6 GSTL 385 (Kerala) :(2017) 10 TMI 831 (Kerala) :(2017) 91 taxmann.com 282 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 Narendra Plastic (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 439 (Delhi) :(2017) 63 GST 414 (Delhi) :(2017) 9 TMI 674 (Delhi) :(2017) 85 taxmann.com 153 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791 Rod Retail Pvt. Ltd. , In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 206 (AAR, New Delhi) :(2018) 4 TMI 938 (AAR, New Delhi) :(2018) 92 taxmann.com 317 (AAR, New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804

THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (COMPENSATION TO STATES) ACT, 2017 FC Agrawal Coal Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 368 (Gujarat) :(2018) 66 GST 386 (Gujarat) :(2017) 10 TMI 880 (Gujarat) :(2018) 91 taxmann.com 213 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 Hind Energy and Coal Beneficiation (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 437 (Delhi) :(2017) 10 TMI 251 (Delhi) :(2018) 91 taxmann. com 274 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 433 (Delhi) :(2017) 10 TMI 250 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 114 (Delhi) :(2017) 63 GST 427 (Delhi) :(2017) 8 TMI 1194 (Delhi) :(2017) 84 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809

xliii

Table of cases – Authority-wise SUPREME COURT Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India, (2018) 359 ELT 97 (SC) : (2018) 65 GST 448(SC) : (2018) 89 taxmann.com 384 (SC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Samaj Parivartana Samudaya. v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 10 GSTL 526 (Supreme Court) : (2017) 10 TMI 255 (Supreme Court) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 279 (Supreme Court). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74, 187 State of Gujarat v. Bharat Pest Control, (2018) 67 GST 439 (SC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Vardh Paper Products (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/GST, (2018) 5 TMI 1392 (Supreme Court) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 341 ( Supreme Court). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656

HIGH COURT High Court of Ahmedabad FC Agrawal Coal Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 368 (Gujarat) : (2018) 66 GST 386 (Gujarat) : (2017) 10 TMI 880 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 213 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 424 (Gujarat) : (2018) 2 TMI 770 (Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724

High Court of Allahabad Agra Steels v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 247 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 1281 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675 Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 385 (Allahabad) : (2018) 6 TMI 108 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538, 576 Akash Traders v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 496 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1140 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 Annapurna International v. State of UP, (2017) 6 GSTL 233 (Allahabad) : (2017) 11 TMI 1021 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Bhumika Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 137 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 273 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 530 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 343 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638 Continental India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 423 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 533 (Allahabad) : (2018) 1 TMI 1245 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 284 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666

xlv

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary GNG Enterprises v. State of U.P, : (2017) 4 GSTL 436 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 550 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 44 (Allahabad) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 182 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 681 Haryana Freight Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 13 GSTL14 (Allahabad) : (2018) 6 TMI 423 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Iqra Roadways (India) Thru’ Its Prop. v. State of U.P., (2018) 8 GSTL 368 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 547 (Allahabad) : (2017) 11 TMI 1032 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 337 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548 KTL (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 132 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 607 (Allahabad) : (2018) 3 TMI 679 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 1 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 140 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 256 (Allahabad) : (2018) 3 TMI 1318 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290, 629 Loka Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 117 (Allahabad) : 2018 (6) TMI 457 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 M.K. Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 545 (Allahabad) : (2017) 12 TMI 342 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 320 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559 M/s Radhey Lal Jaiprakash Neadarganj Dadri v. State Of U.P, (2017) 6 GSTL 234 (Allahabad) : (2017) 11 TMI 1022 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. v. Sate of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 4 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 373 (Allahabad) : (2018) 1 TMI 950 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 214 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 Manoj Kumar v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 241 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 347 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 422 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 Manu International v. State of U.P., (2018) 9 GSTL 4 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2TMI 39 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 211 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . 201, 232, 273 Meenu Traders v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 17 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 273(Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. V. State of U.P., (2018) 8 GSTL 28 (Allahabad) : (2017) 10 TMI 784 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 245 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P, (2017) 4 GSTL 445 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 434 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 1141(Allahabad) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 254(Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 231, 270 Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P, (2017) 5 GSTL 368 (Allahabad) : (2018) 65 GST 137 (Allahabad) : (2017) 10 TMI 1017 (Allahabad) : (2017) 88 taxmann.com 155 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Modern Traders v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 7 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1076 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642

xlvi

Table of cases – Authority-wise Mohd. Yunush v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 242 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 1282 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Navyug Air Conditioning v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 288 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 886 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 18 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Pragati Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 9 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 272 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 Proactive Plast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 580 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2 TMI 663 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 470 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606 R.R. Agro Industries v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 582 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2 TMI 608 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 210 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602, 721 Raj Iron & Building Materialsv. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 19 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 373 (Allahabad) : (2018) 1 TMI 949 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 212 (Allahabad) : Reliance Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 GSTL 133 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 579 (Allahabad) : (2018) 3 TMI 678 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 376(Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608 Sachdeva Overseas v. State of U.P, (2017) 4 GSTL 443 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 554 (Allahabad) : (2017) 10 TMI 252 (Allahabad) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 181 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Samrat Carriers v. State of U.P., (2018) 11 GSTL 167 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 232 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 608 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 425 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 Samsung (India) Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow, (2018) 66 GST 1 (Allahabad) : (2017) 12 TMI 202 (Allahabad) : (2018) 90 taxmann.com 92 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Sapna Goods Carrier v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 539 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 142(Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 97 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 285 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570 Seth Prasad Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 494 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 531 (Allahadad) : (2018) 2 TMI 195 (Allahadad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 281 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 Surendra Steel Supply Company v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 118 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 76 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 118 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653 Time to Time Logistics v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 259 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1007 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann. com 300 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564

xlvii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 119 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 75(Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 277 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 UP Distillers Association v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 10 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 274 (Allahabad) : (2018) 94 taxmann.com 35 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Vardh Paper Products (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/GST, Lucknow, (2018) 5 TMI 698 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 340 (Allahabad).655 Vikram Solar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 5 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 385 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1139 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 166 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 Zebronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 382 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 134 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4) TMI 1074 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562

High Court of Andhra Pradesh Special Ashoka Beedi Works v. GST Officer, Madanpalle, (2018) 10 GSTL 212 (Andhra Pradesh) : (2018) 66 GST 597 (Andhra Pradesh : (2018) 3 TMI 739 (Andhra Pradesh) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 374 (Andhra Pradesh). . . . . . . 551

High Court of Bombay Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 18 (Bombay) : (2018) 66 GST 359 (Bombay) : (2018) 2 TMI 766 (Bombay) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 187 (Bombay) : (2018) 51 GSTR 435 (Bombay) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668 Builders Association of Navi Mumbai v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 232 (Bombay) : (2018) 67 GST 334 (Bombay) : (2018) 4 TMI 461 (Bombay) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 134 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Dipak Logistics and Forwarders v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 GSTL 113 (Bombay) : (2018) 2 TMI 1475 (Bombay) : (2018) 90 taxmann. com 309 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai Founder, MY “Integrating Society India Net” NGGO v. Union Govt. of India, Through, The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs “CBEC”, (2018) 9 GSTL 57 (Bombay) : (2017) 9 TMI 389 (Bombay) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 273 (Bombay). . . . 3 Evergreen Seamless Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 67 GST 235 (Bombay) : (2018) 4 TMI 409 (Bombay) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 382 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665 Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GSTL 636 (Bombay) : (2018) 66 GST 636 (Bombay) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 69 (Bombay) : (2018) 3 TMI 1124(Bombay) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

xlviii

Table of cases – Authority-wise Padmavati Enterprises v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 124 (Bombay) : (2018) 3 TMI 480 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

High Court of Calcutta Indus Integrated Information Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & CS, Kolkata, (2018) 12 GSTL 492 (Calcutta) : (2017) 4 TMI 593 (Calcutta). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677 Kakali Bera v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GST 584 (Calcutta) : (2018) 1 TMI 1003 (Calcutta) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 283 (Calcutta). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

High Court of Chhattisgarh Shree Raipur Cement Plant v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2018) 93 taxmann. com 409 (Chhattisgarh). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744

High Court of Delhi A & M Design & Print production, (2017) 4 GSTL 444 (Delhi) : (2018) 66 GST 390 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 253 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 193 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Aphro Ecommerce Solutions Private Limited V. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 113 (Delhi) : (2018) 66 GST 392 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 750 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 192 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 Chemico Synthetics Limited v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 449 (Delhi) : (2017) 64 GST 114 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 225 (Delhi) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796 D. Pauls Travel & Tours Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 255 (Delhi) : (2017) 12 TMI 640 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Devashish Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 18 (Delhi) : (2018) 1 TMI 276 (Delhi) : (2017) 88 taxmann.com 85 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . 720 Hind Energy and Coal Beneficiation (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 437 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 251 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 274 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 Hughes and Hughes Chem. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 369 (Delhi) : (2017) 11 TMI 1413 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 J K Mittal & Company v. Union of India, (2017) 3 GSTL 321 (Delhi) : (2017) 62 GST 90(Delhi) : (2017) 7 TMI 542 (Delhi) : (2017) 83 taxmann.com 202 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 J K Mittal & Company v. Union of India, (2017) 352 ELT 430(Delhi) : (2017) 3 GSTL 433 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 138(Delhi) : (2017) 7 TMI 623 (Delhi) : (2017) 83 taxmann.com 281 (Delhi). . . . . . . 62 J.K. Mittal & Company v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 435 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 1165 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 xlix

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 8 GSTL 23 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 693 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 251 (Delhi). . . . . . . . 801 Kundan Care Products Limited; Augmont Enterprises Private Limited; Zaveri and Company Private Limited; Sunanda Polymers; Shri Sai Vishwas Polymers; Khandwala Enterprises Private Limited; Diamond Forever International v. Union of India & Anr., (2017) 4 GSTL 118 (Delhi) : (2017) 64 GST 12(Delhi) : (2017) 8 TMI 1142(Delhi) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 251(Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 114 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 427 (Delhi) : (2017) 8 TMI 1194 (Delhi) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 809 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 433 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 250 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184, 814 Narendra Plastic (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 439 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 414 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 674 (Delhi) : (2017) 85 taxmann.com 153 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791 Salasar Synthetics v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 396 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 388 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 319 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 Sanjeev Sharma v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 261 (Delhi), (2017) 9 TMI 1357 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Tara Chand Saluja v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 20 (Delhi) : (2018) 5 TMI 275(Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Zarmina Israr Khan v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 446 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 555 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 249 (Delhi) : (2017) 86 taxmann. com 180 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

High Court of Gauhati Kumar Traders and Company v. State of Assam, (2017) 4 GSTL 120 (Guwahati) : (2017) 9 TMI 749 (Guwahati). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Mascot Entrade (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 9 GSTL 5 (Gauhati) : (2018) 66 GST 246 (Gauhati) : (2018) 4 TMI 269 (Gauhati) : (2018) 90 taxmann.com 223 (Gauhati) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

High Court of Gujarat Liberty Chemtrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 353 (Gujarat) : (2018) 6 TMI 109 (Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743 Nila Infrastructure Limited v. Surat Municipal Corporation, (2018) 11 GSTL 275 (Gujarat) : (2017) 64 GST 597 (Gujarat) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 147 (Gujarat) : (2017) 11 TMI 809 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 86 Remark Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 12 GSTL 481 (Gujarat) (2018) 4 TMI 1292 (Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 l

Table of cases – Authority-wise Sandipkumar Kirankumar Sharma v. State Election Commission, (2018) 9 GSTL 363 (Gujarat) : (2018) 66 GST 376 (Gujarat) : (2018) 2 TMI 1539 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 189 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Willowood Chemicals (P.) Ltd .v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GST 642 (Gujarat) : (2018) 3 TMI 1265 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 296 (Gujarat). . . . . 674

High Court of Karnataka Global Agency v. General Manger, South Western Railway GM Office, (2018) 66 GST 569 (Karnataka) : (2018) 3 TMI 389(Karnataka) : (2018) 91 taxamann.com 217 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 M/s. M.J.S. Enterprises, M/s H.B. Enterprises, M/s Royal Automobiles, M/s M.G. Automobiles, M/s S.A. Automobiles, M/s T.S. Enterprises, M/s Indus Steel Traders, M/s M.M. Enterprises, M/s A.M.K. Enterprises, M/s A.J. Enterprises, M/s Farhan Steel v. The Controller of Stores & Purchase, The Managing Director Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, The State of Karnataka, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (2017) 6 GSTL 152 (Karnataka) : (2017) 64 GST 71 (Karnataka) : (2017) 9 TMI 1301 (Karnataka) : (2017) 86 taxmann. com 54 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Sri Raghvendra Traders v. Government of Karnataka, (2018) 67 GST 463 (Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 235 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635

High Court of Kerala A.K. Fastners v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 566 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 372 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 Age Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant State Tax Officer, SGST Department, Kochi, (2018) 10 GSTL 16 (Kerala) : (2018) 66 GST 20 (Kerala) : (2018) 1 TMI 1116 (Kerala) : (2018) 89 taxmann.com 276 (Kerala) . . . . . 590 Alukka Gold Palace v. State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 471 (Kerala) : (2018) 5 TMI 525 (Kerala) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 120 (Kerala) . . . . . . 212 Anappuram Steels Pvt. Ltd. v Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 567 (Kerala) : (2018) 2 TMI 1622 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 216 (Kerala). . . . 619 Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2017) 66 GST 554 (Kerala) : (2018) 3 TMI 1019 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 410 (Kerala). . . . . . . 625 Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, SGST Department, Ernakulam, (2018) 67 GST 290 (Kerala) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 67 (Kerala). . . . . 633 Commercial Tax Officer v. Madhu M.B., (2017)4 GSTL 437 (Kerala) : (2017) 64 GST 9 (Kerala) : (2017) 9 TMI 1044(Kerala) : (2017) 85 taxmann.com 172(Kerala) : (2017) 47 GSTR 167 (Kerala) : (2017) 105 VST 244 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Corestrength Traders India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Ernakulam, (2018) 67 GST 238 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 369 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 394 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 Dhanaswaroopdas v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 209 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 344 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 423 (Kerala) . . . . . . 543 Etten Craft Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 12 GSTL 273 (Kerala) : (2018) 5 TMI 1280 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 EVM Passenger Cars India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 66 GST 556 (Kerala) (2018) 4 TMI 579 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 366 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 624 General Equipments & Technology Suppliers v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 277 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 319 (Kerala). . . . . . . 634 General Transport v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 240 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 368 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 348 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598 Indus Towers Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 11 GSTL 229 (Kerala) : (2018) 66 GST 364 (Kerala) : (2018) 1 TMI 1313(Kerala) : (2018) 90 taxmann.com 417 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580 J.J. Fabrics v. Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling Kerala State Goods & Service Tax, (2018) 4 TMI 203 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 402 (Kerala). . . . 518 K C Pappu & Sons v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 281 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 345 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649 K.L. Johar & Co v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 236 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 366(Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 424 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594 Kitex Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 234 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 270 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 318 (Kerala) . . . . . . 593 KNR Walayar Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (Works Contracts), Palakkad, (2018) 67 GSTL 116 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 1010 (Kerala). . . . 238 Lal Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, (2018) 67 GST 280 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 379 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657 Level 10 Retail Venture v. State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GSTL 144 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 346 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 258 (Kerala) . . . . . . 557 M.H. Industries v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 553 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 202 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 373 (Kerala) . . . . . . 626 M/s Ascics Trading Company v. The Assistant State Tax Officer, The State of Kerala, (2017) 6 GSTL 385 (Kerala) : (2017) 10 TMI 831(Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 282 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 M/s Ascics Trading Company v. The Assistant State Tax Officer, The State of Kerala, (2017) 6 GSTL 385 (Kerala) : (2017) 10 TMI 831 (Kerala) : (2017) 91 taxmann.com 282 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799

lii

Table of cases – Authority-wise Oriental Metals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 556 (Kerala) : (2018) 3 TMI 1018 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 368 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 Plymark India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 630 (Kerala) : (2018) 3 TMI 901 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 54 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 621 Poonam Grah Nirman Pvt. Ltd. v Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 12 GSTL 6 (Kerala) : (2018) 67 GST 137 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann. com 288 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631 Powermech Diesels v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Kerala GST, Ernakulam, (2018) 13 GSTL 64 (Kerala) : (2018) 66 GST 577(Kerala) : (2018) 2 TMI 983 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 471 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 Prompt Compusolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 278 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 383 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647 Rajeevan V.N. v. Central Tax Officer-1 Circle, Cochin, (2018) 66 GST 362 (Kerala) : (2018) 2 TMI 1717 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 195 (Kerala) . . . . . 210 Ravi Parameswaran Pillai v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 571 (Kerala) : 2018 2 TMI 1296 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 321 (Kerala). . . . . . . . 618 Sameer Mat Industries &Kaleel Mat Industries v State of Kerala, (2018) 10 GSTL 136 (Kerala) : (2018) 65 GST 59 (Kerala) : (2017) 12 TMI 202 (Kerala) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 337 (Kerala); . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283, 553 Shankar Mohan v. Intelligence Inspector, The Intelligence Officer, Commissioner Goods & Service Tax Authority, State of Kerala, (2018) 10 GSTL 211 (Kerala) : (2018) 66 GST 596 (Kerala) : (2018) 1 TMI 179 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 209 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566 Shunson C.J. v. State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 552 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 580 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 411 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 Sujaya Sadanandan v. Assistant Commissioner, Assessment, Special Circle, Commercial Taxes, Kannur, (2018) 67 GST 261 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 271(Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 347 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Teesta Distributors v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 347 (Kerala) : (2018) 12 GSTL 145 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 1009 (Kerala) : [2018] 92 taxmann.com 332 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215, 683

High Court of Madhya Pradesh Nirmal Constructions v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 7 GSTL 3 (Madhya Pradesh) : (2017) 12 TMI 514 (Madhya Pradesh) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 461 (Madhya Pradesh). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 183

liii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary

High Court of Madras Coimbatore Corporation Contractors Welfare Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 51 GSTR 253 (Madras) (2018) 65 GST 56 (Madras) : (2018) 3 TMI 1017 (Madras) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 258 (Madras) . . . . 77 Coimbatore Road Contractors Welfare Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2017) 7 GSTL 4 (Madras) : (2017) 12 TMI 515 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 318 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Coimbatore Road Contractors Welfare Association, Coimbatore v. Dr. C. Chandramouli , I.A.S., (2018) 9 GSTL 361 (Madras) : (2018) 2 TMI 1540 (Madras). . . . . 87 Jaap Auto Distributors v. Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Chennai, (2017) 6 GSTL 262 (Madras) : (2017) 64 GST 447 (Madras) : (2017) 10 TMI 881 (Madras) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 55 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . 277, 295, 717 K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India, (2018) 1 GSTL 53 (Madras) : (2018) 66 GST 23 (Madras), : (2018) 1 TMI 815 (Madras), : (2018) 89 taxmann. com 161(Madras),. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 337 (Madras) : (2018) 66 GST 638 (Madras) : (2018) 3 TMI 1451 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 416 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Kanwar Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai, (2017) 6 GSTL 457 (Madras) : (2017) 11 TMI 1565 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 M. Bagulayan v. Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise, (2018) 66 GST 363 (Madras) : (2018) 2 TMI 194 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 188 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Priyanka Enterprises v. Joint Commissioner of Customs, (2018) 66 GST 614 (Madras) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 53 (Madras) : (2018) 4 TMI 858 (Madras). . . . . . . . . 785 Rajaguru Spinning Mills Pvt. v. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, (2018) 66 GST 594 (Madras) : (2018) 1 TMI 948 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 194 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556

High Court of Punjab and Haryana Carpo Power Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2018) 12 GSTL 248 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2018) 4 TMI 146 (Punjab & Haryana) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 Synthite Industries Ltd. v. Authority for Advance Rulings Kerala, (2018) 12 GSTL 395 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 67 GST 100 (AARKerala) : 2018 (4) TMI 583 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 144 (AAR-Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 WS Retail Services (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 356 ELT 56 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 63 GST 141(Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 7 TMI 667 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 92 (Punjab & Haryana). . . . 241, 757

liv

Table of cases – Authority-wise

High Court of Rajasthan Arihant Superstructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 67 GST 139 (Rajasthan) : (2018) 3 TMI 1268 (Rajasthan) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 236 (Rajasthan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239, 630 Rajasthan Tax Consultant’s Association v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 447 (Rajasthan) : (2017) 63 GST 552 (Rajasthan) : (2017) 10 TMI 254 (Rajasthan) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 183 (Rajasthan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

CESTAT CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Chennai Anguvilas M.V. Muthaiah Pillai Firm v. CCE, Trichy, 2018) 359 ELT 688 (Cestat, Chennai) : (2018) 9 GSTL 384 (Cestat, Chennai)(2018) 2 TMI 1659(Cestat, Chennai). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537

AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS AAR Gujarat Rashmi Hospitality Services Private Limited, In re, (2018) 5 TMI 1181 (AAR - Gujarat) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 309 (AAR- Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . 158, 385 Shreenath Polyplast (P.) Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 809 (AARGujarat) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 178 (AAR-Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179, 320

AAR Karnataka Gogte Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., In Re, (2018) 5 TMI 759 (AAR, Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 201 (AAR, Karnataka). . . . . . 358, 803 M/s Rajashri Foods et. Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1651 (AAR – Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 417 (AAR-Karnataka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173, 473 M/s Sayre Therapeutics Private limited., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1737 (AAR Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 418 (AAR-Karnataka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154, 377 M/s Skilltech Engineers & Contractors Private Limited, In re., (2018) 6 TMI 111 (AAR- Karnataka) : (2018) 94 taxmann.com 20(AAR-Karnataka) . . . 155, 373 M/s Tathagat Health Care Centre LLP, In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1704 (AARKarnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 419 (AAR-Karnataka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156, 387 Rajasthan Foods Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, Case No. KAR ADRG 6/2018 (Yet to be reported) – AAR-Karnataka. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172, 466

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary

AAR Kerala M/s. Caltech Polymers Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 350 (AARKerala) : (2018) 67 GST 95 (AAR- Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 582 (AARKerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 142 (AAR- Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 N.C. Varghese , In re, (2018) 67 GST 98 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 581 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 143 (AAR- Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

AAR Maharashtra Acrymold, In re, (2018) 5 TMI 597 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 102 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159, 390 Aditya Birla Retail Ltd., In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 403 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 700 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 105 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160, 391 Ahmednagar District Goat Rearing & Processing Co-op Federation Ltd., In re, (2018) 93 taxmann.com 267 (AAR - Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170, 445 Cargill India (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 585 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 810 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 92 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151, 355 CEAT Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 467 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 699 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 98 (AARMaharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131, 336 CMS Info Systems Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 649 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 95 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . 191, 146, 352 Fermi Solar Farms (P.) Ltd., In Re, (2018) 5 TMI 963 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 96 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 327 Giriraj Renewables Private Limited, In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 538 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 854 (AAR- Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 93 (AAR- Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318, 126 Hafele India (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 65 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 67 GST 473 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 646 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 104 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . 151, 354 JSW Energy Ltd., In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 92 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 763 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 91 (AARMaharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130, 329 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 526 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 458 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 58 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194, 432 M/s. Caltech Polymers Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 4 TMI 582 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 142 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

lvi

Table of cases – Authority-wise Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., In re, (2018) 5 TMI 1332 (AAR – Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 266 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . 175, 481 National Plastic Industries Ltd., In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 445 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 528 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 101 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165, 430 Nuclear Healthcare Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 497 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 855 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 99 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128, 325 Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 647 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 100 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . 153, 371 Simple Rajendra Shukla, In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 463 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 97 (AAR- Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . 130, 331

AAR New Delhi Deepak & Co., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 598 (AAR-New Delhi) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 94 (AAR-New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163, 415 Rod Retail Pvt. Ltd. , In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 206 (AAR, New Delhi) : (2018) 4 TMI 938 (AAR, New Delhi) : (2018) 92 taxmann. com 317 (AAR, New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397, 804 Shri Sanjeev Sharma, In re, (2018) 4 TMI 1077 (AAR , New Delhi) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 494 (AAR - New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164, 180, 408 VPSSR Facilities, In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 116 (AAR-NewDelhi) : (2018) 5 TMI 904 (AAR - New Delhi) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 268 (AAR New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 471

AAR West Bengal Akansha Hair & Skin Care Herbal Unit Pvt. Ltd. , In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 214 (AAR- West Bengal) : (2018) 4 TMI 811 (AAR-West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 213 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145, 433 EMC Ltd., In re, (2018) 5 TMI 964 (AAR-West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 200 (AAR-West Bengal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176, 519 GKB Lens (P.) Ltd., In re,, (2018) 6 TMI 72 (AAR - West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 477 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181, 529 Global Reach Education Services Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 387 (AAR,WestBengal) : (2018) 67 GST 265 (AAR,WestBengal) : (2018) 4 TMI808 (AAR,WestBengal) : (2018) 92 taxamann.com 211 (AAR, West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366, 788 IAC Electricals Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1701 (AAR - West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 476 (AAR - West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177, 523

lvii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Joint Plant Committee, In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 89 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 67 GST 262 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 4 TMI 809 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 208 (AAR, West Bengal). . . . . . 211, 382 Photo Products Company (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 6 TMI 38 (AAR - West Bengal). . . . . 178, 532 Sika India Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, (2018) 12 GSTL 400 (AAR-West Bengal) : 2018 (4) TMI 812 (AAR-West Bengal) : [2018] 92 taxmann. com 210 (AAR-WEST BENGAL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Sreepati Ranjan Gope & Sons, In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 392 (AARWestBengal) : (2018) 5 TMI 370 (AAR-West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 116 (AAR-West Bengal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174, 477 Switching Avo Electro Power Ltd., In re., (2018) 4 TMI 810 (AAR-West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 223 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . 157, 361, 784

NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Abel Space Solution LLP, New Delhi v. Schindler India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, (2018) 6 TMI 687 (NAA) : (2018) 94 taxmann.com 163 (NAA). . . . . . . . . 711 Dinesh Mohan Bharadwaj v. M/s Vrandavaneshwree Automotive Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 67 GST 429 (NAA) : (2018) 4 TMI 1377 (NAA) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 360 (NAA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 Kumar Gandharv v. KRBL Ltd., (2018) 67 GST 574 (NAA) : (2018) 5 TMI 1760 (NAA) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 149 (NAA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706

lviii

Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise CGST Section 1 and 174 of CGST Act, 2017 GNG Enterprises v. State of U.P., (2017) 4 GSTL 436 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 550 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 44 (Allahabad) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 182 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Section 1 of CGST Act, 2017 Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai Founder, MY “Integrating Society India Net” NGGO v. Union Govt. of India, Through, The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs “CBEC”, (2018) 9 GSTL 57 (Bombay) : (2017) 9 TMI 389 (Bombay) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 273 (Bombay). . . . 3 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 114 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 427 (Delhi) : (2017) 8 TMI 1194 (Delhi) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Sandipkumar Kirankumar Sharma v. State Election Commission, (2018) 9 GSTL 363 (Gujarat) : (2018) 66 GST 376 (Gujarat) : (2018) 2 TMI 1539 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 189 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Section 2(17), 2(31), 7 and 9 of CGST Act, 2017 Builders Association of Navi Mumbai v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 232 (Bombay) : (2018) 67 GST 334 (Bombay) : (2018) 4 TMI 461 (Bombay) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 134 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Section 2(52), 8, 9 of CGST Act, 2017 N.C. Varghese , In re, (2018) 67 GST 98 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 581 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 143 (AAR- Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Section 2(53), 7 and 8 of CGST Act, 2017 M/s Skilltech Engineers & Contractors Private Limited, In re., (2018) 6 TMI 111 (AAR- Karnataka) : (2018) 94 taxmann.com 20(AAR-Karnataka). . . . . . . . . 155, 373

Section 2(64) and 7 of CGST Act, 2017 State of Gujarat v. Bharat Pest Control, (2018) 67 GST 439 (SC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Section 2(119) of the CGST Act, 2017 Coimbatore Corporation Contractors Welfare Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 51 GSTR 253 (Madras) (2018) 65 GST 56 (Madras) : (2018) 3 TMI 1017 (Madras) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 258 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 lix

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Coimbatore Road Contractors Welfare Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2017) 7 GSTL 4 (Madras) : (2017) 12 TMI 515 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 318 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Coimbatore Road Contractors Welfare Association, Coimbatore v. Dr. C. Chandramouli , I.A.S., (2018) 9 GSTL 361 (Madras) : (2018) 2 TMI 1540 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Section 3 of CGST Act, 2017 Indus Integrated Information Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & CS, Kolkata, (2018) 12 GSTL 492 (Calcutta) : (2017) 4 TMI 593 (Calcutta). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677

Section 7 of CGST Act, 2017 Acrymold, In re, (2018) 5 TMI 597 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 102 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159, 390 CMS Info Systems Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 649 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 95 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Fermi Solar Farms (P.) Ltd., In Re, (2018) 5 TMI 963 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 96 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Hafele India (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 65 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 67 GST 473 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 646 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 104 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . 151, 354 JSW Energy Ltd., In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 92 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 763 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 91 (AARMaharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130, 329 K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 337 (Madras) : (2018) 66 GST 638 (Madras) : (2018) 3 TMI 1451 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 416 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 M/s Rajashri Foods et. Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1651 (AAR – Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 417 (AAR-Karnataka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173, 473 M/s Sayre Therapeutics Private limited., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1737 (AAR Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 418 (AAR-Karnataka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154, 377 M/s Tathagat Health Care Centre LLP, In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1704 (AARKarnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 419 (AAR-Karnataka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156, 387 M/s. Caltech Polymers Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 350 (AARKerala) : (2018) 67 GST 95 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 582 (AARKerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 142 (AAR-Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162, 393 Nuclear Healthcare Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 497 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 855 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 99 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128, 325

Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise Rajasthan Foods Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, Case No. KAR ADRG 6/2018 (Yet to be reported) – AAR-Karnataka. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172, 466 Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 647 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 100 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . 153, 371 Shri Sanjeev Sharma, In re, (2018) 4 TMI 1077 (AAR-New Delhi) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 494 (AAR - NewDelhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Section 7, 8 of CGST Act, 2017 IAC Electricals Pvt. Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 1701 (AAR - West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 476 (AAR - West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177, 523

Section 7 and 11 of CGST Act, 2017 Aditya Birla Retail Ltd., In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 403 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 700 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 105 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160, 391

Section 7 and 15 of CGST Act, 2017 Shri Sanjeev Sharma, In re, (2018) 4 TMI 1077 (AAR- New Delhi) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 97 (AAR – New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408

Section 7 and 16 of CGST Act, 2017 CMS Info Systems Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 649 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 95 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

Section 7 and 101 of CGST Act, 2017 Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., In re, (2018) 5 TMI 1332 (AAR – Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 266 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175, 481 Rashmi Hospitality Services Private Limited, In re, (2018) 5 TMI 1181 (AAR - Gujarat) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 309 (AAR-Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158, 385 VPSSR Facilities, In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 116 (AAR-NewDelhi) : (2018) 5 TMI 904 (AAR - New Delhi) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 268 (AAR New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 471

Section 8 of CGST Act, 2017 Deepak & Co., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 598 (AAR-New Delhi) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 94 (AAR-New Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163, 415 Fermi Solar Farms (P.) Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 963 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 96 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Photo Products Company (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 6 TMI 38 (AAR - West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 479 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178, 532 lxi

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Sreepati Ranjan Gope & Sons, In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 392 (AARWestBengal) : (2018) 5 TMI 370 (AAR-West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 116 (AAR-West Bengal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174, 477 Switching Avo Electro Power Ltd., In re., (2018) 4 TMI 810 (AAR-West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 223 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Section 8 and 9 of CGST Act, 2017 Samsung (India) Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow, (2018) 66 GST 1 (Allahabad) : (2017) 12 TMI 202 (Allahabad) : (2018) 90 taxmann.com 92 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Section 9 of CGST Act , 2017 Cargill India (P.) Ltd., In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 585 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 810 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 92 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151, 355 CEAT Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 467 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 699 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 98 (AARMaharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131, 336 Giriraj Renewables Private Limited, In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 538 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 854 (AAR- Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 93 (AAR- Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126, 318 Global Agency v. General Manger, South Western Railway GM Office, (2018) 66 GST 569 (Karnataka) : (2018) 3 TMI 389(Karnataka) : (2018) 91 taxamann.com 217 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 National Plastic Industries Ltd., In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 445 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 528 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 101 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165, 430 Nila Infrastructure Limited v. Surat Municipal Corporation, (2018) 11 GSTL 275 (Gujarat) : (2017) 64 GST 597 (Gujarat) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 147 (Gujarat) : (2017) 11 TMI 809 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Samaj Parivartana Samudaya. v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 10 GSTL 526 (Supreme Court) : (2017) 10 TMI 255 (Supreme Court) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 279 (Supreme Court). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Simple Rajendra Shukla, In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 463 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 97 (AAR- Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130, 331 UP Distillers Association v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 10 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 274 (Allahabad) : (2018) 94 taxmann.com 35 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Zarmina Israr Khan v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 446 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 555 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 249 (Delhi) : (2017) 86 taxmann. com 180 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 lxii

Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise

Section 9(3) of CGST Act, 2017 J K Mittal & Company v. Union of India, (2017) 352 ELT 430(Delhi) : (2017) 3 GSTL 433 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 138(Delhi) : (2017) 7 TMI 623 (Delhi) : (2017) 83 taxmann.com 281 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Section 9(3) and 9(4) of CGST Act, 2017 J K Mittal & Company v. Union of India, (2017) 3 GSTL 321 (Delhi) : (2017) 62 GST 90(Delhi) : (2017) 7 TMI 542 (Delhi) : (2017) 83 taxmann.com 202 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Section 9 and 11 of CGST Act, 2017 Hughes and Hughes Chem. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 369 (Delhi) : (2017) 11 TMI 1413 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 M/s. M.J.S. Enterprises, M/s H.B. Enterprises, M/s Royal Automobiles, M/s M.G. Automobiles, M/s S.A. Automobiles, M/s T.S. Enterprises, M/s Indus Steel Traders, M/s M.M. Enterprises, M/s A.M.K. Enterprises, M/s A.J. Enterprises, M/s Farhan Steel v. The Controller of Stores & Purchase, The Managing Director Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, The State of Karnataka, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (2017) 6 GSTL 152 (Karnataka) : (2017) 64 GST 71 (Karnataka) : (2017) 9 TMI 1301 (Karnataka) : (2017) 86 taxmann. com 54 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Section 9 and 101 of CGST Act, 2017 Ahmednagar District Goat Rearing & Processing Co-op Federation Ltd., In re, (2018) 93 taxmann.com 267 (AAR - Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170, 445

Section 9 and 103 of CGST Act, 2017 Akansha Hair & Skin Care Herbal Unit Pvt. Ltd. , In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 214 (AAR- West Bengal) : (2018) 4 TMI 811 (AAR-West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 213 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145, 433

Section 9, 101, 103 of CGST Act, 2017 EMC Ltd., In re, (2018) 5 TMI 964 (AAR-West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 200 (AAR-West Bengal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176, 519

Section 10 of CGST Act, 2017 Rajasthan Tax Consultant’s Association v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 447 (Rajasthan) : (2017) 63 GST 552 (Rajasthan) : (2017) 10 TMI 254 (Rajasthan) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 183 (Rajasthan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

lxiii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary

Section 15 of CGST Act, 2017 GKB Lens (P.) Ltd., In re,, (2018) 6 TMI 72 (AAR - West Bengal) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 477 (AAR-West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181, 529 Shreenath Polyplast (P.) Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 809 (AAR-Gujarat) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 178 (AAR-Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179, 320 Shri Sanjeev Sharma, In re, (2018) 4 TMI 1077 (AAR , New Delhi) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 494 (AAR - New Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Section 16 of CGST Act , 2017 CMS Info Systems Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 649 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 95 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 526 (AARMaharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 458 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 58 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194, 432 Mohit Minerals Private Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 433 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 250 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Nirmal Constructions v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 7 GSTL 3 (Madhya Pradesh) : (2017) 12 TMI 514 (Madhya Pradesh) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 461 (Madhya Pradesh). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Samaj Parivartana Samudaya. v.State of Karnataka, (2018) 10 GSTL 526 (Supreme Court) : (2017) 10 TMI 255 (Supreme Court) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 279 (Supreme Court). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Tara Chand Saluja v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 20 (Delhi) : (2018) 5 TMI 275(Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Section 16, 17 and 22 of CGST Act 2017 D. Pauls Travel & Tours Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 255 (Delhi) : (2017) 12 TMI 640 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Section 22 of CGST Act , 2017 Joint Plant Committee, In re, (2018) 13 GSTL 89 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 67 GST 262 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 4 TMI 809 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 208 (AAR, West Bengal) . . . . . . . . . . . 211, 382 Manu International v. State of U.P., (2018) 9 GSTL 4 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2TMI 39 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 211 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2018) 8 GSTL 28 (Allahabad) : (2017) 10 TMI 784 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 245 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P, (2017) 4 GSTL 445 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 434 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 1141(Allahabad) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 254(Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 lxiv

Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P, (2017) 5 GSTL 368 (Allahabad) : (2018) 65 GST 137 (Allahabad) : (2017) 10 TMI 1017 (Allahabad) : (2017) 88 taxmann.com 155 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Sachdeva Overseas v. State of U.P, (2017) 4 GSTL 443 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 554 (Allahabad) : (2017) 10 TMI 252 (Allahabad) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 181 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Section 22(2) and 23(2) of CGST Act, 2017 J.K. Mittal & Company v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 435 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 1165 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Section 25 of CGST Act , 2017 Alukka Gold Palace v. State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 471 (Kerala) : (2018) 5 TMI 525 (Kerala) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 120 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Rajeevan V.N. v. Central Tax Officer-1 Circle, Cochin, (2018) 66 GST 362 (Kerala) : (2018) 2 TMI 1717 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 195 (Kerala) . . . . . 210

Section 29 of CGST Act , 2017 Annapurna International v. State of UP, (2017) 6 GSTL 233 (Allahabad) : (2017) 11 TMI 1021 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Section 35 of CGST Act, 2017 Teesta Distributors v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 347 (Kerala) : (2018) 12 GSTL 145 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 1009 (Kerala) : [2018] 92 taxmann.com 332 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Section 39 and 129 of CGST Act, 2017 Arihant Superstructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 67 GST 139 (Rajasthan) : (2018) 3 TMI 1268 (Rajasthan) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 236 (Rajasthan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239, 630

Section 39 of CGST Act , 2017 KNR Walayar Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (Works Contracts), Palakkad, (2018) 67 GSTL 116 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 1010 (Kerala). . . . . 238 M/s Radhey Lal Jaiprakash Neadarganj Dadri v. State Of U.P, (2017) 6 GSTL 234 (Allahabad) : (2017) 11 TMI 1022 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Manu International v. State of U.P., (2018) 9 GSTL 4 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2TMI 39 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 211 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P, (2017) 4 GSTL 445 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 434 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 1141(Allahabad) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 254(Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

lxv

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary Padmavati Enterprises v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 124 (Bombay) : (2018) 3 TMI 480 (Bombay) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Sujaya Sadanandan v. Assistant Commissioner, Assessment, Special Circle, Commercial Taxes, Kannur, (2018) 67 GST 261 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 271(Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 347 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Section 49 of CGST Act, 2017 Manu International v. State of U.P., (2018) 9 GSTL 4 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2TMI 39 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 211 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Modern Pipe Industries v. State of U.P, (2017) 4 GSTL 445 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 434 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 1141(Allahabad) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 254(Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

Section 49(4) and 49(5) of CGST Act, 2017 A & M Design & Print production, (2017) 4 GSTL 444 (Delhi) : (2018) 66 GST 390 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 253 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 193 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

Section 50 of CGST Act , 2017 M. Bagulayan v. Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise, (2018) 66 GST 363 (Madras) : (2018) 2 TMI 194 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 188 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

Section 52 of CGST Act, 2017 WS Retail Services (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 356 ELT 56 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 63 GST 141(Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 7 TMI 667 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 92 (Punjab & Haryana). . . . . . . . 241

Section 59 of CGST Act, 2017 Jaap Auto Distributors v. Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Chennai, (2017) 6 GSTL 262 (Madras) : (2017) 64 GST 447 (Madras) : (2017) 10 TMI 881 (Madras) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 55 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Section 67 of CGST Act, 2017 Kumar Traders and Company v. State of Assam, (2017) 4 GSTL 120 (Guwahati) : (2017) 9 TMI 749 (Guwahati). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Sameer Mat Industries &Kaleel Mat Industries v State of Kerala, (2018) 10 GSTL 136 (Kerala) : (2018) 65 GST 59 (Kerala) : (2017) 12 TMI 202 (Kerala) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 337 (Kerala); . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

lxvi

Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise

Section 68 of CGST Act, 2017 K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India, (2018) 1 GSTL 53 (Madras) : (2018) 66 GST 23 (Madras), : (2018) 1 TMI 815(Madras), : (2018) 89 taxmann. com 161(Madras),. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 140 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 256 (Allahabad) : (2018) 3 TMI 1318 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290, 629

Section 68, 129 of CGST Act, 2017 Navyug Air Conditioning v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 288 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 886 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 18 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . 291

Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GSTL 636 (Bombay) : (2018) 66 GST 636 (Bombay) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 69 (Bombay) : (2018) 3 TMI 1124(Bombay) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Jaap Auto Distributors v. Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Chennai, (2017) 6 GSTL 262 (Madras), : (2017) 64 GST 447 (Madras) : (2017) 10 TMI 881 (Madras) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 55 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Mascot Entrade (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 9 GSTL 5 (Gauhati) : (2018) 66 GST 246 (Gauhati) : (2018) 4 TMI 269 (Gauhati) : (2018) 90 taxmann.com 223 (Gauhati). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 Remark Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 12 GSTL 481 (Gujarat) (2018) 4 TMI 1292 (Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Section 96 of CGST Act, 2017 Etten Craft Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 12 GSTL 273 (Kerala) : (2018) 5 TMI 1280 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 Gogte Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., In Re, (2018) 5 TMI 759 (AAR, Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 201 (AAR, Karnataka). . . . . . 358, 803 Rajasthan Foods Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, Case No. KAR ADRG 6/2018 (Yet to be reported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466

Section 96, 97 and 146 of CGST Act, 2017 Sanjeev Sharma v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 261 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 1357 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

lxvii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary

Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 J.J. Fabrics v. Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling Kerala State Goods & Service Tax, (2018) 4 TMI 203 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 402 (Kerala). . . . 518

Section 101 CGST Act, 2017 Global Reach Education Services Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, (2018) 12 GSTL 387 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 67 GST 265 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 4 TMI 808 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 211 (AAR, West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366, 788 Switching Avo Electro Power Ltd. In Re:, (2018) 13 GSTL 84 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 67 GST 449 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 4 TMI 810 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 223 (AAR, West Bengal). . . . . . 361, 784 Synthite Industries Ltd. v. Authority for Advance Rulings Kerala, (2018) 12 GSTL 395 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 67 GST 100 (AAR-Kerala) : 2018 (4) TMI 583 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 144 (AAR-Kerala). . . . . 726

Section 103 of CGST Act, 2017 Rod Retail Pvt. Ltd. , In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 206 (AAR, New Delhi) : (2018) 4 TMI 938 (AAR, New Delhi) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 317 (AAR, New Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397, 804

Section 107 and 129 of CGST Act, 2017 Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 385 (Allahabad) : (2018) 6 TMI 108 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538, 576

Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 Raj Iron & Building Materialsv. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 19 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 373 (Allahabad) : (2018) 1 TMI 949 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 212 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572

Section 122 and 129 of CGST Act, 2017 Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. v. Sate of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 4 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 373 (Allahabad) : (2018) 1 TMI 950 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 214 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574

Section 129 CGST Act, 2017 A.K. Fastners v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 566 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 372 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 Akash Traders v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 496 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1140 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578

lxviii

Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise Anappuram Steels Pvt. Ltd. v Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 567 (Kerala) : (2018) 2 TMI 1622 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 216 (Kerala). . . . 619 Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2017) 66 GST 554 (Kerala) : (2018) 3 TMI 1019 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 410 (Kerala). . . . . . . 625 Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, SGST Department, Ernakulam, (2018) 67 GST 290 (Kerala) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 67 (Kerala) . . . . . . 633 Commercial Tax Officer v. Madhu M.B., (2017)4 GSTL 437 (Kerala) : (2017) 64 GST 9 (Kerala) : (2017) 9 TMI 1044(Kerala) : (2017) 85 taxmann.com 172(Kerala) : (2017) 47 GSTR 167 (Kerala) : (2017) 105 VST 244 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 Corestrength Traders India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Ernakulam, (2018) 67 GST 238 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 369 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 394 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 Dhanaswaroopdas v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 209 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 344 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 423 (Kerala) . . . . . . 543 Dipak Logistics and Forwarders v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 GSTL 113 (Bombay) : (2018) 2 TMI 1475 (Bombay) : (2018) 90 taxmann. com 309 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 EVM Passenger Cars India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 66 GST 556 (Kerala) (2018) 4 TMI 579 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 366 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 624 General Equipments & Technology Suppliers v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 277 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 319 (Kerala). . . . . . . 634 General Transport v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 240 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 368 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 348 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598 Haryana Freight Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 13 GSTL14 (Allahabad) : (2018) 6 TMI 423 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Iqra Roadways (India) Thru’ Its Prop. v. State of U.P., (2018) 8 GSTL 368 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 547 (Allahabad) : (2017) 11 TMI 1032 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 337 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548 K C Pappu & Sons v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 281 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 345 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649 K.L. Johar & Co v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 236 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 366(Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 424 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594 Lal Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, (2018) 67 GST 280 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 379 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657 Level 10 Retail Venture v. State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GSTL 144 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 346 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 258 (Kerala) . . . . . . 557 M.H. Industries v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 553 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 202 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 373 (Kerala) . . . . . . 626

lxix

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary M.K. Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 545 (Allahabad) : (2017) 12 TMI 342 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 320 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559 M/s Ascics Trading Company v. The Assistant State Tax Officer, The State of Kerala, (2017) 6 GSTL 385 (Kerala) : (2017) 10 TMI 831(Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 282 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 Manoj Kumar v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 241 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 347 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 422 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 Meenu Traders v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 17 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 273(Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 Modern Traders v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 7 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1076 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642 Oriental Metals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 556 (Kerala) : (2018) 3 TMI 1018 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 368 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 Plymark India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 630 (Kerala) : (2018) 3 TMI 901 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 54 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 621 Poonam Grah Nirman Pvt. Ltd. v Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 12 GSTL 6 (Kerala) : (2018) 67 GST 137 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann. com 288 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631 Proactive Plast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 580 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2 TMI 663 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 470 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . 606 Prompt Compusolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 278 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 383 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647 R.R. Agro Industries v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 582 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2 TMI 608 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 210 (Allahabad). . . . . 602, 721 Ravi Parameswaran Pillai v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 571 (Kerala) : 2018 2 TMI 1296 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 321 (Kerala). . . 618 Reliance Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 GSTL 133 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 579 (Allahabad) : (2018) 3 TMI 678 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 376(Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608 Sameer Mat Industries v. State of Kerala, (2018) 10 GSTL 136 (Kerala) : (2018) 65 GST 59 (Kerala) : (2017) 12 TMI 202 (Kerala) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 337 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 Seth Prasad Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 494 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 531 (Allahadad) : (2018) 2 TMI 195 (Allahadad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 281 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 Shankar Mohan v. Intelligence Inspector, The Intelligence Officer, Commissioner Goods & Service Tax Authority, State of Kerala, (2018) 10 GSTL 211 (Kerala) : (2018) 66 GST 596 (Kerala) : (2018) 1 TMI 179 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 209 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566

lxx

Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise Sri Raghvendra Traders v. Government of Karnataka, (2018) 67 GST 463 (Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 235 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635 Vardh Paper Products (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/GST, (2018) 5 TMI 1392 (Supreme Court) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 341 (Supreme Court). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656 Vikram Solar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 5 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 385 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1139 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 166 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 Zebronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 382 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 134 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4) TMI 1074 (Allahabad). . . . . . . 562

Section 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 Indus Towers Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 11 GSTL 229 (Kerala) : (2018) 66 GST 364 (Kerala) : (2018) 1 TMI 1313(Kerala) : (2018) 90 taxmann.com 417 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580

Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017 Agra Steels v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 247 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 1281 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675 Continental India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 423 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 533 (Allahabad) : (2018) 1 TMI 1245 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 284 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666 Evergreen Seamless Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 67 GST 235 (Bombay) : (2018) 4 TMI 409 (Bombay) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 382 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665 KTL (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 132 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 607 (Allahabad) : (2018) 3 TMI 679 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 1 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 Kundan Care Products Limited; Augmont Enterprises Private Limited; Zaveri and Company Private Limited; Sunanda Polymers; Shri Sai Vishwas Polymers; Khandwala Enterprises Private Limited; Diamond Forever International v. Union of India & Anr., (2017) 4 GSTL 118 (Delhi) : (2017) 64 GST 12(Delhi) : (2017) 8 TMI 1142(Delhi) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 251(Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 Salasar Synthetics v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 396 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 388 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 319 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 Willowood Chemicals (P.) Ltd .v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GST 642 (Gujarat) : (2018) 3 TMI 1265 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 296 (Gujarat) . . . 674

lxxi

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary

Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017 Kanwar Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai, (2017) 6 GSTL 457 (Madras) : (2017) 11 TMI 1565 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663

Section 164 of CGST Act, 2017 Teesta Distributors v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 347 (Kerala) : 2018 (4) TMI 1009 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 332 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683

Section 171 of CGST Act 2017/SGST Act, 2017 Abel Space Solution LLP, New Delhi v. Schindler India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, (2018) 6 TMI 687 (NAA) : (2018) 94 taxmann.com 163 (NAA). . . . . . . . . 711 Dinesh Mohan Bharadwaj v. M/s Vrandavaneshwree Automotive Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 67 GST 429 (NAA) : (2018) 4 TMI 1377 (NAA) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 360 (NAA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 Kumar Gandharv v. KRBL Ltd., (2018) 67 GST 574 (NAA) : (2018) 5 TMI 1760 (NAA) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 149 (NAA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706

Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 GNG Enterprises v. State of U.P., (2017) 4 GSTL 436 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 550 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 44 (Allahabad) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 182 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681

SGST Section 1 of SGST Act, 2017 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 114 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 427 (Delhi) : (2017) 8 TMI 1194 (Delhi) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai Founder, MY “Integrating Society India Net” NGGO v. Union Govt. of India, Through, The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs “CBEC”, (2018) 9 GSTL 57 (Bombay) : (2017) 9 TMI 389 (Bombay) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 273 (Bombay). . . . 3 Sandipkumar Kirankumar Sharma v. State Election Commission, (2018) 9 GSTL 363 (Gujarat) : (2018) 66 GST 376 (Gujarat) : (2018) 2 TMI 1539 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 189 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Section 1 and 74 of SGST Act, 2017 GNG Enterprises v. State of U.P., (2017) 4 GSTL 436 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 550 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 44 (Allahabad) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 182 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

lxxii

Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise

Section 7 of SGST Act, 2017 K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 337 (Madras) : (2018) 66 GST 638 (Madras) : (2018) 3 TMI 1451 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 416 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Section 171 of SGST Act, 2017 Dinesh Mohan Bharadwaj v. M/s Vrandavaneshwree Automotive Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 67 GST 429 (NAA) : (2018) 4 TMI 1377 (NAA) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 360 (NAA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 Kumar Gandharv v. KRBL Ltd., (2018) 67 GST 574 (NAA) : (2018) 5 TMI 1760 (NAA) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 149 (NAA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706

Andhra Pradesh Section 129 of Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Special Ashoka Beedi Works v. GST Officer, Madanpalle, (2018) 10 GSTL 212 (Andhra Pradesh) : (2018) 66 GST 597 (Andhra Pradesh : (2018) 3 TMI 739 (Andhra Pradesh) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 374 (Andhra Pradesh). . . . . . . 551

Karnataka Section 129 of Karnataka GST Act, 2017. Sri Raghvendra Traders v. Government of Karnataka, (2018) 67 GST 463 (Karnataka) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 235 (Karnataka). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635

Maharashtra Section 129 of Maharashtra GST Act, 2017 Dipak Logistics and Forwarders v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 GSTL 113 (Bombay) : (2018) 2 TMI 1475 (Bombay) : (2018) 90 taxmann. com 309 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610

Tamil Nadu Section 129 of Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Sameer Mat Industries v. State of Kerala, (2018) 10 GSTL 136 (Kerala) : (2018) 65 GST 59 (Kerala) : (2017) 12 TMI 202 (Kerala) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 337 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

Section 407 of Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017 Rajaguru Spinning Mills Pvt. v. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, (2018) 66 GST 594 (Madras) : (2018) 1 TMI 948 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 194 (Madras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556 lxxiii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary

Kerala Section 25 of Kerala GST Act, 2017 Rajeevan V.N. v. Central Tax Officer-1 Circle, Cochin, (2018) 66 GST 362 (Kerala) : (2018) 2 TMI 1717 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 195 (Kerala) . . . . . 210

Section 96 of Kerala GST Act, 2017 Etten Craft Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 12 GSTL 273 (Kerala) : (2018) 5 TMI 1280 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Section 97 of Kerala GST Act, 2017 J.J. Fabrics v. Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling Kerala State Goods & Service Tax, (2018) 4 TMI 203 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 402 (Kerala). . . . 518

Section 129 of Kerala GST Act, 2017 A.K. Fastners v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 566 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 372 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 Age Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant State Tax Officer, SGST Department, Kochi, (2018) 10 GSTL 16 (Kerala) : (2018) 66 GST 20 (Kerala) : (2018) 1 TMI 1116 (Kerala) : (2018) 89 taxmann.com 276 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590 Anappuram Steels Pvt. Ltd. v Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 567 (Kerala) : (2018) 2 TMI 1622 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 216 (Kerala). . . . 619 Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2017) 66 GST 554 (Kerala) : (2018) 3 TMI 1019 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 410 (Kerala). . . . . . . 625 Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, SGST Department, Ernakulam, (2018) 67 GST 290 (Kerala) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 67 (Kerala). . . . . 633 Commercial Tax Officer v. Madhu M.B., (2017)4 GSTL 437 (Kerala) : (2017) 64 GST 9 (Kerala) : (2017) 9 TMI 1044(Kerala) : (2017) 85 taxmann.com 172(Kerala) : (2017) 47 GSTR 167 (Kerala) : (2017) 105 VST 244 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 Corestrength Traders India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Ernakulam, (2018) 67 GST 238 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 369 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 394 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 Dhanaswaroopdas v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 209 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 344 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 423 (Kerala) . . . . . . 543 EVM Passenger Cars India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 66 GST 556 (Kerala) (2018) 4 TMI 579 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 366 (Kerala) . . . . . . . 624 General Transport v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 240 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 368 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 348 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598 K C Pappu & Sons v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 281 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 345 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649 lxxiv

Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise K.L. Johar & Co v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 236 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 366(Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 424 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594 Kitex Ltd. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 234 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 270 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 318 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 Lal Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, (2018) 67 GST 280 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 379 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657 M.H. Industries v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 553 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 202 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 373 (Kerala) . . . . . . 626 Oriental Metals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 556 (Kerala) : (2018) 3 TMI 1018 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 368 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 Poonam Grah Nirman Pvt. Ltd. v Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 12 GSTL 6 (Kerala) : (2018) 67 GST 137 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann. com 288 (Kerala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631 Powermech Diesels v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Kerala GST, Ernakulam, (2018) 13 GSTL 64 (Kerala) : (2018) 66 GST 577(Kerala) : (2018) 2 TMI 983 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 471 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 Prompt Compusolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 278 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 383 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647 Shunson C.J. v. State Tax Officer, (2018) 66 GST 552 (Kerala) : (2018) 4 TMI 580 (Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 411 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627

Section 140 of Kerala GST Act, 2017 General Equipments & Technology Suppliers v. Assistant State Tax Officer, (2018) 67 GST 277 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 319 (Kerala). . . . . . . 634

Section 164 of Kerala GST Act, 2017 Teesta Distributors v. State of Kerala, (2018) 67 GST 347 (Kerala) : 2018 (4) TMI 1009 (Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 332 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683

Uttar Pradesh Section 68, 129 of UPGST Act, 2018 Navyug Air Conditioning v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 288 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 886 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 18 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . 291

Section 79 of UPGST Act, 2017 Mohd. Yunush v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 242 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 1282 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

lxxv

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary

Section 107 and 129 of UPGST Act, 2017 Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 385 (Allahabad) : (2018) 6 TMI 108 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538, 576

Section 129 UPGST Act 2017 Akash Traders v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 496 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1140 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 Bhumika Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 137 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 273 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 530 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 343 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638 Haryana Freight Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 13 GSTL14 (Allahabad) : (2018) 6 TMI 423 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Iqra Roadways (India) Thru’ Its Prop. v. State of U.P., (2018) 8 GSTL 368 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 547 (Allahabad) : (2017) 11 TMI 1032 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 337 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548 Loka Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 117 (Allahabad) : 2018 (6) TMI 457 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 M.K. Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 545 (Allahabad) : (2017) 12 TMI 342 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 320 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559 Manoj Kumar v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 241 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 347 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 422 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 Modern Traders v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 7 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1076 (Allahabad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642 Pragati Enterprises v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 9 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 272 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 Proactive Plast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 580 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2 TMI 663 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 470 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . 606 R.R. Agro Industries v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 582 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2 TMI 608 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 210 (Allahabad). . . . . 602, 721 Samrat Carriers v. State of U.P., (2018) 11 GSTL 167 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 232 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 608 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 425 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 Sapna Goods Carrier v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 539 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 142(Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 97 (Allahabad) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 285 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570 Seth Prasad Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 494 (Allahabad) : (2018) 66 GST 531 (Allahadad) : (2018) 2 TMI 195 (Allahadad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 281 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 Surendra Steel Supply Company v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 118 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 76 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 118 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653 lxxvi

Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise Time to Time Logistics v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 259 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1007 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann. com 300 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564 Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 12 GSTL 119 (Allahabad) : (2018) 5 TMI 75(Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 277 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 Vardh Paper Products (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/ GST, Lucknow, (2018) 5 TMI 698 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann. com 340 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655 Vardh Paper Products (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/ GST, (2018) 5 TMI 1392 (Supreme Court) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 341 (Supreme Court). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656 Vikram Solar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 5 (Allahabad) : (2018) 67 GST 385 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4 TMI 1139 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 166 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 Zebronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2018) 67 GST 382 (Allahabad) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 134 (Allahabad) : (2018) 4) TMI 1074 (Allahabad). . . . . . . 562

Section 140 of the Gujarat Goods And Services Tax Act 2017 Willowood Chemicals (P.) Ltd .v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GST 642 (Gujarat) : (2018) 3 TMI 1265 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 296 (Gujarat) . . . 674

Section 174 of UPGST Act, 2017 GNG Enterprises v. State of U.P., (2017) 4 GSTL 436 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 550 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 44 (Allahabad) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 182 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681

IGST Section 1 of IGST Act, 2017 Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai Founder, MY “Integrating Society India Net” NGGO v. Union Govt. of India, Through, The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs “CBEC”, (2018) 9 GSTL 57 (Bombay) : (2017) 9 TMI 389 (Bombay) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 273 (Bombay). . . . 3 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 114 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 427 (Delhi) : (2017) 8 TMI 1194 (Delhi) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Sandipkumar Kirankumar Sharma v. State Election Commission, (2018) 9 GSTL 363 (Gujarat) : (2018) 66 GST 376 (Gujarat) : (2018) 2 TMI 1539 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 189 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

lxxvii

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary

Section 1 and 174 of IGST Act, 2017 GNG Enterprises v. State of U.P., (2017) 4 GSTL 436 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 550 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 44 (Allahabad) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 182 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Section 2(5), 2(23), 2(61), 16(1) of IGST Act, 2017 Rod Retail Pvt. Ltd. , In re, (2018) 12 GSTL 206 (AAR, New Delhi) : (2018) 4 TMI 938 (AAR, New Delhi) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 317 (AAR, New Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397, 804

Section 2(10) and 5 of IGST Act, 2017 Priyanka Enterprises v. Joint Commissioner of Customs, (2018) 66 GST 614 (Madras) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 53 (Madras) : (2018) 4 TMI 858 (Madras). . . . . . . 785

Section 4 and 20 of IGST Act, 2017 M/s Ascics Trading Company v. The Assistant State Tax Officer, The State of Kerala, (2017) 6 GSTL 385 (Kerala) : (2017) 10 TMI 831(Kerala) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 282 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546

Section 5 of IGST Act, 2017 Jaap Auto Distributors v. Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Chennai, (2017) 6 GSTL 262 (Madras) : (2017) 64 GST 447 (Madras) : (2017) 10 TMI 881 (Madras) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 55 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717 Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 424 (Gujarat) : (2018) 2 TMI 770 (Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724 Shree Raipur Cement Plant v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2018) 93 taxmann. com 409 (Chhattisgarh). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744 Synthite Industries Ltd. v. Authority for Advance Rulings Kerala, (2018) 12 GSTL 395 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 67 GST 100 (AAR-Kerala) : 2018 (4) TMI 583 (AAR-Kerala) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 144 (AAR-Kerala). . . . . 726

Section 5(1) of IGST Act, 2017 Devashish Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 18 (Delhi) : (2018) 1 TMI 276 (Delhi) : (2017) 88 taxmann.com 85 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . 720 Liberty Chemtrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 12 GSTL 353 (Gujarat) : (2018) 6 TMI 109 (Gujarat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743

Section 5, 7 of IGST Act, 2017 R.R. Agro Industries v. State of UP, (2018) 66 GST 582 (Allahabad) : (2018) 2 TMI 608 (Allahabad) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 210 (Allahabad). . . . . 602, 721

lxxviii

Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise

Section 7 of IGST Act, 2017 K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 337 (Madras) : (2018) 66 GST 638 (Madras) : (2018) 3 TMI 1451 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 416 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Section 7 and 8 of IGST Act, 2017 WS Retail Services (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 356 ELT 56 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 63 GST 141 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 7 TMI 667 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 92 (Punjab & Haryana). . . . . . . . 757

Section 13 of IGST Act 2017 Global Reach Education Services Pvt. Ltd. In Re:, (2018) 12 GSTL 387 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 67 GST 265 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 4 TMI 808 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 211 (AAR, West Bengal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366, 788 Switching Avo Electro Power Ltd. In Re:, (2018) 13 GSTL 84 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 67 GST 449 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 4 TMI 810 (AAR, West Bengal) : (2018) 92 taxmann.com 223 (AAR, West Bengal). . . . . . 361, 784

Section 16(1) of IGST Act, 2017 Aphro Ecommerce Solutions Private Limited V. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 113 (Delhi) : (2018) 66 GST 392 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 750 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 192 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789

Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 Section 8 of The Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 FC Agrawal Coal Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 368 (Gujarat) : (2018) 66 GST 386 (Gujarat) : (2017) 10 TMI 880 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 213 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 Hind Energy and Coal Beneficiation (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 437 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 251 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 274 (Delhi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 433 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 250 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 114 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 427 (Delhi) : (2017) 8 TMI 1194 (Delhi) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809

lxxix

Compendium of GST Cases with Summary

Allied Legislation Article 226 of Constitution of India. Kakali Bera v. Union of India, (2018) 66 GST 584 (Calcutta) : (2018) 1 TMI 1003 (Calcutta) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 283 (Calcutta). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation, (2018) 11 GSTL 275 (Gujarat) : (2017) 64 GST 597 (Gujarat) : (2018) 11 TMI 809 (Gujarat) : (2017) 87 taxmann.com 147 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Nirmal Constructions v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 7 GSTL 3 (Madhya Pradesh) : (2017) 12 TMI 514 (Madhya Pradesh) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 461 (Madhya Pradesh). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Article 279A of Constitution of India Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai Founder, MY “Integrating Society India Net” NGGO v. Union Govt. of India, Through, The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs “CBEC”, (2018) 9 GSTL 57 (Bombay) : (2017) 9 TMI 389 (Bombay) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 273 (Bombay). . . . 3 GNG Enterprises v. State of U.P., (2017) 4 GSTL 436 (Allahabad) : (2017) 63 GST 550 (Allahabad) : (2017) 8 TMI 44 (Allahabad) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 182 (Allahabad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India, (2018) 11 GSTL 337 (Madras) : (2018) 66 GST 638 (Madras) : (2018) 3 TMI 1451 (Madras) : (2018) 91 taxmann. com 416 (Madras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 114 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 427 (Delhi) : (2017) 8 TMI 1194 (Delhi) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Sandipkumar Kirankumar Sharma v. State Election Commission, (2018) 9 GSTL 363 (Gujarat) : (2018) 66 GST 376 (Gujarat) : (2018) 2 TMI 1539 (Gujarat) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 189 (Gujarat). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 Nuclear Healthcare Ltd., In re., (2018) 12 GSTL 497 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 5 TMI 855 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 99 (AAR-Maharashtra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Nuclear Healthcare Ltd., In re., (2018) 5 TMI 855 (AAR-Maharashtra) : (2018) 93 taxmann.com 99 (AAR-Maharashtra). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

GSTN Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 GSTL 18 (Bombay) : (2018) 66 GST 359 (Bombay) : (2018) 2 TMI

lxxx

Table of cases – Legislation-Section-wise 766 (Bombay) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 187 (Bombay) : (2018) 51 GSTR 435 (Bombay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668

Section 7 and 8 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Carpo Power Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2018) 12 GSTL 248 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2018) 4 TMI 146 (Punjab & Haryana) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727

Section 29 and 51 of Punjab VAT Act, 2005; Section 3 and 9 of CST Act, 1956 WS Retail Services (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 356 ELT 56 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 63 GST 141(Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 7 TMI 667 (Punjab & Haryana) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 92 (Punjab & Haryana). . . . . . . . 241

Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 Anguvilas M.V. Muthaiah Pillai Firm v. CCE, Trichy, 2018) 359 ELT 688 (Cestat, Chennai) : (2018) 9 GSTL 384 (Cestat, Chennai)(2018) 2 TMI 1659(Cestat, Chennai). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537

Standards of weights and measures Act, 1976; Legal Metrology Act, 2009 Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India, (2018) 359 ELT 97 (SC) : (2018) 65 GST 448(SC) : (2018) 89 taxmann.com 384 (SC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Advance Authorization Advance Authorization Narendra Plastic (P.) Ltd. v Union of India, (2017) 4 GSTL 439 (Delhi) : (2017) 63 GST 414 (Delhi) : (2017) 9 TMI 674 (Delhi) : (2017) 85 taxmann.com 153 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791

Import Advance Authorization Chemico Synthetics Limited v. Union of India, (2017) 6 GSTL 449 (Delhi) : (2017) 64 GST 114 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 225 (Delhi) : (2017) 86 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796 Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 8 GSTL 23 (Delhi) : (2017) 10 TMI 693 (Delhi) : (2018) 91 taxmann.com 251 (Delhi). . . . . . . . 801 M/s Ascics Trading Company v. The Assistant State Tax Officer, The State of Kerala, (2017) 6 GSTL 385 (Kerala) : (2017) 10 TMI 831 (Kerala) : (2017) 91 taxmann.com 282 (Kerala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799

lxxxi

Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai Founder, MY “Integrating Society India Net” NGGO v. Union G

PART I

General Matters

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai Founder, MY “Integrating Society India Net” NGGO V. Union Govt. of India, Through, The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs “CBEC”

CHAPTER 1

Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity DR. KANAGASABAPATHY SUNDARAM PILLAI FOUNDER, MY “INTEGRATING SOCIETY INDIA NET” NGGO V. UNION GOVT. OF INDIA, THROUGH, THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS “CBEC” DR. KAN AGASABAP ATHY SUNDAR AM PILLAI… V. UNION GOVT. O F INDIA…

Title

Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai Founder, MY “Integrating Society India Net” NGGO v. Union Govt. of India, Through, The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs “CBEC”

Date of Order/Judgment

11.07.2017

Citation

(2018) 9 GSTL 57 (Bombay) (2017) 9 TMI 389 (Bombay) (2018) 91 taxmann.com 273 (Bombay)

Decision

In favour of respondent and against petitioner

Provision involved

Article 279A of Constitution of India read with section 1 of CGST/SGST/UTGST/IGST Acts, 2017

Gist of Case The Government of India through GST Council (constituted under Article 279A of the Constitution of India) decided to implement GST in India w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Accordingly, the GST legislations (namely CGST, SGST, UTGST, IGST Act) came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The petitioner, in this case, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking postponement of the decision to implement GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 for the simple reason that the levy and collection of taxes on goods and services should have the sanction of law and that implementation is without the sanction of Parliament, in mid-year, the Government is not prepared for implementation and many states are yet to decide on rules, rates etc. As such, petitioner sought deferment of the implementation of GST till all legal flaws are removed, and/or till the full decision of final rates for all items including State surcharge items preparation is done by all India states and Union Territories. 3

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

The Union of India made written submissions that Government is well geared up to administer and implement the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and following averments were made: (i)

Thirty State legislatures have passed the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

(ii)

Necessary rules have been framed and notified.

(iii)

Over 65 lakh taxpayers have already migrated to GST network and obtained registrations.

(iv)

Rates of taxes have been notified.

(v)

GST Seva Kendras have been set up at every Commissionerate, Division and Range. They are answering all questions of the tax payers, and will continue to do so. A Nodal Officer has been designated at each Kendra for this purpose. States are following similar procedure.

(vi)

Administrative machinery is in place. Officers of the Central Excise, Service Tax and States Value Added Tax will be implementing GST.

(vii) Everything is now put on the Public Domain. (viii) 60,000 officers in Central and State Governments have been trained in GST Law. The facts narrated by the learned ASG thus, indicate that respondents have taken all steps to implement New Tax System including to bring awareness amongst citizens. It was held that petition shall not be entertained with the observation that since the Government machinery was geared up, the petitioner could not urge or seek directions to postpone the decision of implementation from 01.07.2017. The court observed that it is much evident that all such necessary steps are taken by the respondents to ensure implementation of the GST, as it appears: (i)

over 65 Lakhs tax-payers have already migrated to GST network and obtained registrations,

(ii)

the rates and taxes have been notified;

(iii)

rules have been framed and notified;

(iv)

wide publicity has been given in public domain;

(v)

entire machinery has been geared up not only to accept new challenge but to ensure GST is implemented effectively.

In result, the petition was dismissed. In the Supreme Court Supreme Court bench dismissed the petition for special leave filed by the petitioner stating that it was not inclined to enter into the merits of the case at the

Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai… v. Union Govt. of India…

instance of petitioner vide order dated 22.01.2018 in appeal number 26326 of 2017 as reported in (2018) 12 GSTL J180.

Text of Case IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY V.K. Tahilramani and Sandeep K. Shinde, JJ. Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 65 of 2017, REPRESENTED BY:

Petitioner present in person.

S/Shri Anil C. Singh, Addl. Solicitor General with P.S. Jetly, Sham V. Walve and Ms. Geetika Gandhi, Advocates, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT PER: SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J – The decision of respondent to implement Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’ for short) with effect from 1-7-2017 is subject matter of challenge in this petition on the following grounds: (i)

That implementation is without parliamentary sanction and implementation in midst of the financial year, is not valid;

(ii)

That the preparations are not well to adopt the new system as the rates of CGST done recently just a week back for which many representations from the public are not yet replied/rectified;

(iii)

That the States/UTs many are not yet decided, not made laws and not declared their proposed rates, not prepared well for smooth implementations;

(iv)

That the compensation for the first quarter of the financial year not paid apart from the arrears of many aids/schemes/sharing and the States and UTs will become financially critical and unstable.

The petitioner has expressed his concerns in the matter of implementation of acts and extent of implementation of SGST in its model form across the country by States and Union territories. Petitioner expressed the doubt as to whether Acts in their current form will be effective in reducing the regulatory and administrative hurdles. He, therefore, submitted that in the circumstances it is advisable to make an automatic software interfaced with the Trade Tax Automated Bank Account (TTABA) and suggested such other measures for effective implementation of GST. Petitioner, thus, prayed that implementation of GST be deferred till all legal flaws are removed, and/or till full decision of final rates for all items including State surcharge items preparation is done by all Indian States and Union territories. 5

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: (a)

Direct the respondent to defer the implementation till the legal sanction for implementation, the decided rates on all varied commodities, etc., is taken from the Parliament in Budget Session of 2018 in February, 2018 for initiation of the new proposal from 1st April, 2018;

(b)

Direction to utilize the period for the action on anti-profiteering laws and on all shell companies, illegal duplicate manufacturing companies, unlawful commercial activities for tax evading/moneylaundering, etc., by the records of existing tax system thus preventing escape of those by the pretext in change records in new tax system;

(c)

To give publicity of all procedure to make the traders familiar and they can be given facilities of softwares interfaced with the trade account as per the Tax registration and the licences given for trades and awareness education of public by our NGGO trained Senior citizen volunteers from 2001 census family based as “GST Personal Assistant (GSTPA)” (as in case of Direct Tax “TPA”) at the cost of traders be posted. This will create 50 crore 4 - workhours part time volunteers from 2001 census family based under EGS to prevent financial irregularities and help to achieve less cash/cashless society;

(d)

Directing to insist get a dedicated Trade-Bank-Account, KYC based on valid trade licences only not by registration certificates or individual basis for trade;

(e)

Education for awareness and informations as to be provided by periodically in medias especially now regarding the new tax system.

That to ensure implementation of 101st Amendment to the Constitution of India, the following 4 (Four) Acts were enacted: (i)

The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

(ii)

The Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

(iii)

The Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017.

(iv)

The Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and received presidential assent on 6-4-2017.

In view of the fact aforesaid, contention of the petitioner that decision to implement the aforesaid Acts from 1-7-2017 is without authority of law lacks substance. In fact, herein levy and collection of taxes has sanction of law in terms of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. 4.

As against this, the learned ASG appearing for the Union of India submitted thus:

Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillaiâ&#x20AC;Ś v. Union Govt. of Indiaâ&#x20AC;Ś

(i)

Thirty State Legislatures have passed the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

(ii)

Necessary rules have been framed and notified.

(iii)

Over 65 lakh taxpayers have already migrated to GST network and obtained registrations.

(iv)

Rates of taxes have been notified.

(v)

GST Seva Kendras have been set up at every Commissionerate, Division and Range. They are answering all questions of the taxpayers, and will continue to do so. A Nodal Officer has been designated at each Kendra for this purpose. States are following similar procedure.

(vi)

Administrative machinery is in place. Officers of the Central Excise, Service Tax and States Value Added Tax will be implementing GST.

We have perused the petition and the written submissions submitted by the learned ASG. In our view, petitioner cannot urge and/or seek directions to the respondents to postpone the decision to implement GST with effect from 1-7-2017, for simple reason that herein levy and collection of taxes on goods and services has sanction of law. That from written submission, it is much evident that all such necessary steps are taken by the respondents to ensure implementation of the GST, as it appears (i) over 65 lakh taxpayers have already migrated to GST network and obtained registrations, (ii) the rates and taxes have been notified; (iii) rules have been framed and notified; (iv) wide publicity is given in public domain; (v) entire machinery has been geared up not only to accept new challenge but to ensure GST is implemented effectively.

In view of these facts, we are not inclined to entertain PIL and the same is dismissed.

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

GNG ENTERPRISES V. STATE OF U.P. Title

GNG Enterprises v. State of U.P.

Date of Order/Judgment

28.07.2017

Citation

(2017) 4 GSTL 436 (Allahabad) (2017) 63 GST 550 (Allahabad) (2017) 8 TMI 44 (Allahabad) (2017) 86 taxmann.com 182 (Allahabad)

Decision

In favour of petitioner and against respondent

Provision involved

Article 279A of Constitution of India read with section 1 and 174 of CGST/SGST/UTGST/IGST Acts, 2017; UP Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979

Gist of Case Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and development of entertainment facilities including Multiplex theatres in district Saharanpur. Under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a scheme was formulated on 3rd September, 2015, which was valid upto 31st March, 2020 permitting the Multiplex owners to collect entertainment tax and to retain 100% in the first year, 75% in the second and third year and 50% in the fourth and fifth year. On the basis of the said scheme, the Entertainment Tax Officer/Collector, Saharapur vide order dated 20-7-2015 specifically permitted the petitioner to retain the entertainment tax to the above extent so as to enable it to recover the cost of construction of the Multiplex. During the subsistence of the above scheme, the CGST Act and UPGST Acts have been implemented w.e.f. 1.7.2017 and the UPGST Act has been repealed vide Section 174 of UPGST Act with the saving clause that it would not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Act provided the tax exemption granted under the repealed Act by any notification has not been rescinded or revoked by a fresh notification on or after the enforcement of the GST. It was held that the assessee was to be permitted to avail benefit of a Scheme issued under UP Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 even after shift to GST regime with effect from 1.7.2017 as there is no notification issued for repealing the benefit as in the past, till 31.3.2020 and to retain percentage of it, subject to final disposal of writ.

GNG Enterprises v. State of U.P.

Text of Case IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD [COURT NO. III] Pankaj Mithal and Umesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ. Writ Tax No. 518 of 2017 REPRESENTED BY:

Shri Ashutosh Yadav, Counsel, for the Petitioner.

ORDER Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and development of entertainment facilities including Multiplex theatres in district Saharanpur. Under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) an scheme was formulated on 3rd September, 2015, which was valid upto 31st March, 2020 permitting the Multiplex owners to collect entertainment tax and to retain 100% of the first year, 75% in the second and third year and 50% in the fourth and fifth year. On the basis of the said scheme, the Entertainment Tax Officer/Collector, Saharapur vide order dated 20-7-2015 specifically permitted the petitioner to retain the entertainment tax to the above extent so as to enable it to recover the cost of construction of the Multiplex. 2.

During the subsistence of the above scheme, the C.G.S.T. and U.P.G.S.T. Acts have been implemented w.e.f. 1-7-2017 and the Act has been repealed vide Section 174 of U.P.G.S.T. Act with the saving clause that it will not effect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Act provided the tax exemption granted under the repealed Act by any notification has not been rescinded or revoked by a fresh notification on or after the enforcement of the G.S.T.

The submission of Sri Abhishek Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Section 174 of the U.P.G.S.T. as there is no notification repealing the benefit conferred upon the petitioner under the scheme of the Act, he is entitle to collect entertainment tax as in the past upto 31st March, 2020 and to retain the percentage of it in accordance with the scheme.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 3 and Sri Krishna Agarwal, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 are directed to file counter affidavit within one month. Two weeks thereafter are allowed to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit. They would specifically answer if the scheme granting tax benefit to the petitioner is still continuing or stand revoked either automatically or by any fresh notification.

List this petition for admission/final disposal [on] 18-9-2017.

The petitioner is free suitably amend the petition if advised. 9

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

MOHIT MINERALS (P.) LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA Title

Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Date of Order/Judgment

25.08.2017

Citation

(2017) 4 GSTL 114 (Delhi) (2017) 63 GST 427 (Delhi) (2017) 8 TMI 1194 (Delhi) (2017) 84 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi)

Decision

In favour of petitioner and against respondent

Provision involved

Article 279A of Constitution of India read with section 1 of CGST/SGST/UTGST/IGST Acts, 2017; Election code of conduct

Gist of Case The challenge in this Petition was with regard to the constitutional validity of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 (‘Act’). The context in which the challenge is laid is that the petitioner was a trader of imported and Indian coal having its operation in various parts of the country. Prior to the impugned Act, under the Finance Act, 2010 (‘FA 2010’), with effect from 1stJuly 2010, a ‘Clean Energy Cess’ was levied under Chapter VII. As a result, on every metric tonne of coal that was sold by the petitioner, it was required to pay initially a cess @ Rs. 100 per tonne which was progressively increased and stood at Rs. 400 per tonne as on the date of its abolition when the new GST regime was introduced. The petitioner was a bona fide trader in coal, carrying on business for a long time. The immediate concern was that for the transactions that took place, the petitioner was required to make payment of the additional levy as cess which, according to the petitioner, is clearly without the authority of law. The petitioner made the representations to the GST Council and to the Central Government but did not receive any response. In the instant case, where the assessee was a trader in coal and has filed writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, it was held that where the assessee had already paid clean energy cess in terms of Finance Act, 2010 on stock of coal as on the appointed date, no further payment of tax under the GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 was required to be made. It was made clear, however, that on those stocks for which the petitioner is not able to produce a satisfactory proof of already having paid the Clean Energy Cess under the Finance Act, 2010, the petitioner would be required to pay the cess under the impugned Act. This would be subject to the directions issued hereinbefore.

Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Text of Case IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI S. Muralidhar and Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. W.P. (C) No. 7459 of 2017 and C.M. Nos. 30754 of 2017 (stay) & 30755 of 2017 (exemption) REPRESENTED BY: S/Shri J.K. Mittal, Rajveer Singh and Ms. Nidhi Gupta, Advocates, for the Petitioner. S/Shri Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Nitish Gupta, Farman Ali, Advocates and Ms. Aarti Saxena, Deputy Secretary (DOR), for the Respondent.

ORDER C.M. No. 30755/2017 (Exemption): Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

Notice. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, accepts notice for Respondent No. 1, the Union of India.

The challenge in this petition is to the constitutional validity of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 (‘Act’). The context in which the challenge is laid is that the petitioner is a trader of imported and Indian coal having its operation in various parts of the country. Prior to the impugned Act, under the Finance Act, 2010 (‘FA 2010’), with effect from 1st July, 2010, a ‘Clean Energy Cess’ was levied under Chapter VII. As a result, on every metric tonne of coal that was sold by the petitioner, it was required to pay initially a cess @ Rs. 100 per tonne which was progressively increased and stood at Rs. 400 per tonne as on the date of its abolition when the new GST regime was introduced.

Section 18 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 (‘TLA Act’) states that enactments specified in the third column of the Third Schedule thereto stand repealed to the extent specified in the fourth column thereof. Under the Third Schedule has been included the entire Chapter VII of the FA, 2010. Chapter VII pertained to the ‘Clean Energy Cess’. In other words with effect from 1st July, 2017 the Clean Energy Cess levied under the FA, 2010 stands abolished. Clause 4(a) of Article 279A of the Constitution of India, which was inserted by the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 (hereafter the ‘COI 101st Amendment Act’), states that the Goods and Services Tax Council (GST Council) shall make recommendations to the Union and States on “the taxes, cesses and surcharges levied by the Union, the States and local bodies which may be subsumed in the goods and services tax.” Further Clause 4(f) states that the GST Council may recommend special rates for a specified period “to raise additional resources during any natural calamity or disaster.” The idea was 11

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

to have all the cesses and levies abolished and subsumed under the GST. Additional revenue could be raised only for natural calamities and disasters. 5.

A very forceful case is made by Mr. J.K. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that Parliament did not propose or intend to use the GST regime to impose new cesses. Significantly Clause 18 of the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Second Amendment) Bill, 2014 contemplated levying an additional tax not exceeding 1% on supply of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Such additional tax was to be levied for a period of two years or for such other period as the GST Council recommended and was to be assigned to the States in the manner prescribed thereunder. However, when the Bill was debated in the Parliament, Clause 18 was dropped. What was Clause 19 of the said Bill has today been enacted as Section 18 of the COI 101st Amendment Act. It states that the Parliament shall, by law, on the recommendation of the GST Council, provide for compensation to the States for loss of revenue arising on account of implementation of GST, for a period which may extend to 5 years.

The crux of the petitioner’s submission is that Section 18 of the COI 101st Amendment Act does not enable the Parliament to levy any cess which stood abolished in terms of the Third Schedule of the TLA Act. Mr. Mittal submits that even if the purpose was to compensate the States for loss of revenue, that had to be done by some other means. Section 18 does not permit the levy of such cess.

Interestingly, when the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Bill, 2017 was introduced in the Parliament, it made an express reference to only Section 18 of the COI 101st Amendment Act. Para 2 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill preceding the Act reproduces Section 18 of the COI 101st Amendment Act. The Long Title of the Act also makes a reference only to the COI 101st Amendment Act.

The Court sees prima facie merit in the contention of the petitioner, based on the history of the abolition of the Clean Energy Cess and the introduction of the GST regime, that the power of Parliament to enact the impugned Act cannot be traced to Section 18 of the COI 101st Amendment Act. There is therefore a prima facie case made out as regards the legislative competence of the Parliament to enact the impugned Act.

Another aspect of the matter is that Section 8 of the impugned Act contemplates levy of “a cess on such intra-State supplies of goods or services or both”, the same that is provided in Section 9 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’) and such “inter-State supply of goods and services or both” as provided for in Section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘IGST Act’). Therefore, it is clear that cess is being levied on the same taxable event that is the subject

Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

matter of the levy under the CGST and IGST Acts, viz., supply of goods and services. 10.

For the purpose of providing compensation to States for loss of revenue arising out of the implementation of the GST regime, Section 8 contemplates the cess being collected in such a manner as may be prescribed. This has led to the enactment of the Goods and Services Tax Compensation Cess Rules, 2017. Notification No. 1/2017-Compensation Cess (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has re-introduced the cess @ Rs. 400 per tonne of coal. If the Act is vulnerable to being challenged for lack of legislative competence then the Rules can fare no better.

11.

The situation in which the petitioner is placed is that, for stocks of coal on which the petitioner has already paid the Clean Energy Cess, the petitioner has to again pay the fresh levy of cess at the rate of Rs. 400/- per tonne under the Act. Further, for the Clean Energy Cess that was already paid by the petitioner under the FA, 2010 no input credit is given. Mr. Mittal draws the attention of the Court to the Frequently Asked Questions (‘FAQs’) issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (‘C.B.E. & C.’) in which Question 42 and answer given thereto read as under: Whether credit of Green “Question 42: Cess (Clean Energy Cess) paid on coal and available at the time of transition be eligible for being carried over? Answer: No. Credit of Clean Energy Cess cannot be carried forward on transition.”

12.

The petitioner states that it is a bona fide trader in coal, carrying on business for a long time. The immediate concern is that for the transactions that are to take place, the petitioner is required to make payment of the additional levy as cess which, according to the petitioner, is clearly without the authority of law. The representations made by the petitioner to the GST Council and to the Central Government have not received any response. In Para 15 of the petition it is stated: That the petitioner has already paid upto 30th June, 2017, cess “15. under the Clean Energy Cess levied under the Finance Act, 2010 on the imported coal, and the stock laying out it again subjected to cess under the impugned legislation. Furthermore, the no credit is allowed on the Clean Energy Cess so already paid with the cess levied under the impugned legislation. The petitioner have stock of around 1,92,000 tonnes of coal as on 30-6-2017 on which the petitioner have already paid clean energy cess @ 400/- per tonne as per the cess levied under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Finance Act, 2010. Further, w.e.f. 1-7-2017, the petitioner have to charge cess from customers @ 400/- per tonne under the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 while selling this stock which will 13

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

result in double taxation of around Rs. 7.68 crores on the stock of coal on which cess has already been paid. The last date of payments of such cess is 25th of August, 2017 for the supply made in the month of July, 2017. The petitioner, as narrated hereinabove, already made representation to the respondents and also had meetings with officers of the respondents No. 2, but no response and only through the press report came to know that cess already paid will not be available for credit and it will lead to double cess on the same stock.â&#x20AC;? 13.

The Court, at this stage, is of the view that, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for partial ad interim relief subject to conditions. As far as the additional levy on the stocks of coal on which it has already paid the Clean Energy Cess in terms of FA Act, 2010, the petitioner should not be required to make any further payment. However, on stocks of coal on which no Clean Energy Cess under the FA, 2010 was paid, any payment made in terms of the impugned Act would be subject to the result of this petition. It is ordered accordingly.

14.

It is made clear that, in the event of the petitioner succeeding in the present petition, the petitioner would be entitled to a refund of amounts of Clean Energy Cess paid under the Act and on such terms as the Court may determine in the final order.

15.

To facilitate the implementation of this interim order, it is necessary for the officers of the concerned Department, charged with the responsibility of levying and collecting Clean Energy Cess on coal to depute a team to the petitionerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s business premises to verify on how much of the stock of coal Clean Energy Cess under the FA, 2010 already stands paid. Subject to the petitioner furnishing to the satisfaction of the officers proof of such payment, the petitioner will be given credit for such payment and will not be required to make any further payment under the impugned Act for effecting sales and clearances. Till such time the said exercise is completed, no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner to recover the levy under the impugned Act.

16.

It is made clear however, that on those stocks for which the petitioner is not able to produce a satisfactory proof of already having paid the Clean Energy Cess under the FA, 2010, the petitioner will be required to pay the cess under the impugned Act. This would be subject to the directions issued hereinbefore.

17.

Reply be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

18.

List on 26th October, 2017.

19.

Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

Nirmal Constructions v. State of Madhya Pradesh

NIRMAL CONSTRUCTIONS V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Title

Nirmal Constructions v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order/Judgment

06.09.2017

Citation

(2017) 7 GSTL 3 (Madhya Pradesh) (2017) 12 TMI 514 (Madhya Pradesh) (2018) 91 taxmann.com 461 (Madhya Pradesh)

Decision

In favour of respondent and against petitioner

Provision involved

Factoring of GST in Tender; Article 226 of Constitution of India.

Gist of Case Where due to the implementation of GST law, the State Government had decided that no action be taken on the tenders invited from July 1, 2017, to August 5, 2017, and for future contracts, i.e., from August 5, 2018, the offers should be invited by excluding the amount of GST. The petitioner filed the writ petition in the High Court due to such cancellation of the tender by the State Government. The High Court held that since the entire tax regime has undergone a change, the State Government's decision not to act upon the tenders invited from July 1, 2017, to August 5, 2017, could not be held to be illegal or arbitrary.

Text of Case IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Hemant Gupta, CJ and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. W.P. NO. 13563 OF 2017 REPRESENTED BY:

Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.

Shri Amit Seth, Advocate, for the Respondent.

ORDER Challenge in the present petition is to a communication dated 18-8-2017, which has the effect of cancellation of the tender in which the petitioner participated. The communication is that Goods and Services Tax has been made applicable with effect from 1-7-2017, therefore, it is decided by the State Government on 5-82017 that for future contracts, offers should be invited by excluding the amount of GST.

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

Such decision is on account of the change in tax environment and inasmuch as, the petitioner or other contractors will be entitled to benefit of input tax deposited by the sellers of the goods, which the petitioner purchases. Since the entire tax regime has undergone change, therefore, the State Government’s decision not to act upon the tenders invited with effect from 1-7-2017 to 5-8-2017 cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary, which may warrant interference of this Court.

It may be stated that in pursuance of the offer of the petitioner, letter of acceptance of the contract has not been communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a case of concluded contract. In the absence of concluded contract, the petitioner cannot claim right to seek grant of contract only on the basis of the offer submitted by the petitioner at one stage.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed.

NILA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. V. SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Title

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

Date of Order/Judgment

02.11.2017

Citation

(2018) 11 GSTL 275 (Gujarat) (2017) 64 GST 597 (Gujarat) (2018) 11 TMI 809 (Gujarat) (2017) 87 taxmann.com 147 (Gujarat)

Decision

Against assessee; WritPetition dismissed

Provision involved

Factoring of GST in Tender; Article 226 of Constitution

Gist of Case In the instant case, petitioner did not deposit the entire bid/document fee with 18% GST but paid only the part of the bid document fee/bid processing fee whereas other tenderers submitting the bids deposited entire amount of document fee/bid processing fee including GST @ 18% as stipulated in tender document and ‘nProcure’ document. The court observed that only those parties who paid the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and tender fee electronically and thereafter in the physical format within stipulated time be required to be considered as tenderers/bidders, whose bid is required to be opened and considered on merits subject to fulfilment of other terms and conditions, if any. Deposit of tender fee and EMD can be said to be an essential condition at the entry stage itself and entire amount should be paid at the relevant time. Petitioner cannot be considered 16

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

at all tenderer/bidder and therefore, its bid was not considered at technical bid stage. Mere downloading of tender document cannot be said to be entry at the initial stage to consider such person who has downloaded as bidder/tenderer. Decision of respondent Corporation, therefore, was held to be neither arbitrary, nor mala fide and nor contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender document and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;nProcureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; tender consolidated details. Unless and until all the terms and conditions of the tender document, more particularly, "nProcure" and the essential conditions are complied with the petitioners/bidders would not get right automatically to consider him eligible. Downloading of tender document is a different thing than thereafter getting the entry after complying with the terms and conditions of the tender document "nProcure" requirement. Therefore, merely because the petitioner and others were permitted to download the tender document free of cost, unless and until all the terms and conditions are satisfied, it does not get any right to consider its bid. Mere downloading of tender document cannot be said to be entry at the initial stage to consider such person who has downloaded as bidder/tenderer. Court opined that impugned decision cannot be said to be either perverse and/or arbitrary and/or mala fide and therefore, the same does not require any interference of this Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, petition fails and deserves dismissal, and was accordingly dismissed.

Text of Case HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT M.R. Shah and B.N. Karia, JJ. Special Civil Application No. 18236 of 2017

ORDER M.R. Shah, J. - Rule Shri Dhaval Nanavati, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.1 and Shri Mahavir Gadhvi, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.2. In the facts and circumstance of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2.

By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned decision of the respondent Corporation to disqualify the petitioner no.1 treating its bid as non-responsive and ineligible on the sole ground that while submitting the bid the petitioner no.1 has not paid Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as the "GST") to the respondent with the Bid/Document Fee. 17

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under:

3.1

That the respondent Corporation has issued a Request for Proposal (hereinafter referred to as "RFP") for "Development of Integrated Group Housing Facility at Dumbhal Tenements of FP No. 18/A TPS No. 33 (Dumbhal) on PPP basis under Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme-2016". As per the RFP, initially the online bid was to be submitted by 29.03.2017 and the physical bid was to be submitted by 07.04.2017. However, the aforesaid deadlines came to be extended upto 22.06.2017 for the online submission and 01.07.2017 for the physical submission. One of the conditions of the FIR RFP required the bidder to make payment of Rs.18,000/-towards "Bid/Document Fee". Pursuant to the first RFP the petitioner no.1 submitted its online bid on 22.06.2017 and the physical bid on 23.06.2017. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that as per the condition of First RFP, the petitioner no.1 also made the payment of Rs.18000/- towards bid/document fee. It appears that since the petitioner no.1 was the only entity who had submitted its bid in response to the First RFP, the respondent re-issued the RFP (hereinafter referred to as 'Second RFP") on 1.8.2017 for the tender works. As per the conditions of Second RFP, the online bid was required to be submitted on 07.09.2017 and the physical bid was to be submitted by 15.09.20178. The Second RFP also required the bidder to pay Rs.18000/- towards bid/document fees, however this time the said amount was to be paid along with GST @ 18%. That as per the tender notice, time schedule was as under:

Sr. Event of Description No. 1 Last date of receiving queries online only 2 Surat Municipal Corporation response to queries 3 Pre-Bid Meeting

4 5

Last date of online submission Opening of Bids

Date 21.08.2017 up to 11.00 hrs. Response to queries will be uploaded online as corrigendum/amendment after pre-bid meeting. Pre-Bid meeting will be held on 22.08.2017 @ 16.00 hrs. Place of Pre bid meeting: 88, Conference hall, 2nd Floor, SMC Office, Mugalisara, Surat, Gujarat, India. 07.09.2017 If possible on 16.09.2017 at 16.00 hrs in the office of Executive Engineer, Solid Waste Management Dept., Surat Municipal Corporation, Surat (If Possible).

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

Sr. Event of Description No. 6 Validity of Bids 7 Signing of Development Agreement

Date 180 days from the date of opening of price bid. Within 15 days of issue of LOI.

It is submitted that pursuant to the Second RFP, the petitioner no.1 submitted its online bid on 07.09.2017 and the physical bid on 09.09.2017. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that as per the condition of Second RFP, the petitioner no.1 also prepared a Demand Draft of Rs.18,000/-for the payment of Bid/Document Fee. However, since the respondent had not provided any details pertaining to its GST Registration/GSTIN, the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)system of the petitioner no.1, which is GST complaint, provided for the payment of GST @18% on reverse charge basis as per the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017, petitioner did not deposit 18% GST. 3.2

It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that thereafter, during the internal audit of the petitioner no.1, the auditor enquired from the concerned office of the petitioner no.1 about the SAC for the service in respect of which the respondent had demanded GST @ 18% since the respondent, in case of other tenders invited by it, had demanded GST at different rates. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that pursuant thereto, upon inquiry from the respondent Corporation, it came to be informed to the petitioner no.1 that the amount of GST @ 18% was paid along with bid/document fee. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that in view thereof, despite having made a provision for the payment of GST on reverse charge basis as per law, the petitioner no.1 out of abundant caution, addressed a letter dated 19.09.2017 and submitted a Demand Draft No.052513 dated 19.09.2017 towards the said amount of GST as per the information provided by the respondent. At this stage, it is required to be noted that at the time of submitting bid the petitioners made the payment of Rs.18000/- towards bid/document fees, however without GST @18% as demanded as per the tender document/notice. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that thereafter the petitioner no.1 in good faith, addressed another letter to the respondent on the very next day i.e. 20.09.2017, thereby undertaking to bear any penalty, if any, imposed for late deposit of the amount of GST. That on 21.09.2017, the petitioner no.1 was received back the cover containing the letter dated 19.09.2017 along with the Demand Draft dated 19.09.2017 with an endorsement "Not Accept" and "Refused to accept". It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the aforesaid refusal, the petitioner no.1 addressed letter dated 22.09.2017 to the 19

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

Municipal Commissioner of the respondent Corporation narrating the chain of events and inter alia requesting him to grant an opportunity to the petitioner no.1 to rectify the purported technical irregularity, if any, more so since such opportunities are generally given to bidders in order to keep the competition alive and that the RFP was re-issued in the form of Second RFP to achieve the same object. 3.3

It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that thereafter, in absence of any information about the GSTIN of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner no.1 has made the payment of GST by depositing the amount as per reverse charge mechanism on 3.10.2017 at around 12.00 p.m within the time prescribed for the said purpose under law.

3.4

It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that on 3.10.2017, ar around 9.30 a.m, the petitioner no.1 checked the status of the tender on online tender on online tender portal "nProcure". According to the petitioners, at that time, the status showed that the technical bids of all the bidders were under evaluation. According to the petitioner, however, at around 1.00 p.m, the petitioner no.1 re-checked the status of the tender on nProcure and found that the petitioner no.1 had been disqualified. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that as per the latest status of the tender process that out of the three bidders who participated in the tender process, two have been disqualified and thereby newly added respondent no.2 herein -Siddhi Constructions only remained in fray.

3.5

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned action of the respondent no.1- Surat Municipal Corporation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bid submitted by the petitioner disqualified at technical base solely on the ground that the petitioners had not deposited the bid/document fee with 18@ GST and thereby to that extent the petitioners were not responsive of the eligibility criteria/terms and conditions of the tender document/notice that bidder was required to deposit the bid/document fee Rs.18000/with GST @18%, the petitioners have preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners, Shri Prashant G Desai, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri Dhawal Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent Corporation and Shri Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2.

Shri Mihir Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case action of the respondent Corporation in considering the petitioner disqualified at

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

technical stage on the sole ground of non deposit/payment of bid/document fee of Rs.21,240/- with GST @18% is absolutely illegal and most arbitrary. 5.1

It is further submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners that as such the petitioner no.1 in fact, download the tender document/notice successful and thereafter while submitting bid not only paid the EMD of Rs.93,00,000/-, the petitioner no.1 also deposited bid/document fee of Rs.18000/-. It is submitted that as such at the relevant time the petitioners did not deposit the bid/document fee of Rs.18,000/- with 18% GST as respondent Corporation had not provided any details pertaining to GST Registration/GSTIN. It is submitted that even otherwise as per the law with respect to GST, the payment of GST @18% on reverse charge basis was permissible which the petitioner no.1 did deposit on reverse charge basis before the relevant date of payment of GST under the provision of Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017. It is submitted that therefore, as such neither there is a any loss to the respondent Corporation nor any consequence on non payment of GST had arisen. It is therefore, vehemently submitted that on mere non payment of GST @ 18% while making the payment of bid/document fee of Rs.18000/-, the petitioners could not have been declared disqualified at the technical bid stage, more particularly, when the amount of GST at 18@ was Rs.3520/- only, against which, the petitioners, as such, paid/deposited Rs.18000/-towards the bid/document fee and Rs.93,00,000/- towards EMD. It is submitted that therefore, action of the respondent Corporation in declaring the bid submitted by the petitioner no.1 as disqualified at technical stage is unreasonable and arbitrary, which deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5.2

It is further submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners that even otherwise the payment of bid/document fee or tender fees cannot be said to be a condition of the tender or the eligibility and therefore, bid cannot be held to be non responsive for non payment of tender fee (in full). It is submitted that in the present case as such full tender fees have been paid by the petitioner no.1 and then the bid is submitted.

5.3

It is further submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners that even otherwise assuming without admitting that payment of Bid/Document Fees or tender fees was a condition, non fulfillment of such conditions cannot be said to be a non fulfillment of essential conditions of the eligibility. It is submitted that requirement in the tender notice can be classified into two categories those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the 21

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary to the main object to be achieved by the condition. It is submitted that in the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly, however in the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases.

5.4

It is further submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners that even otherwise the conditions of payment of Bid/document/tender fees can neither be said to be a condition of eligibility nor the condition for evaluation. It is submitted that the charges for production of bid document per se is unrelated to bid evaluation. It is submitted that therefore, non payment of aforesaid amount in full (with GST @18% ) cannot be said to be non fulfillment/non compliance of the essential condition relating to eligibility and/or evaluation of the bid on merits.

5.5

It is further submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners that even as per the clause 1.49 of the Tender document/General Information and Instruction which is relatable to responsive of bid/tender fee and that too non-payment of GST @18% on the amount of bid/tender fee is not considered to be "Non Responsive".

5.6

It is further submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners that even otherwise in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, when immediately having come to know, the petitioners have initially sent the demand draft of GST @ 18% of Rs.18000/- (bid/tender fee) and as respondent Corporation did not accept the same, thereafter deposited the said with the appropriate authority on reverse charge basis which the petitioners deposited with the appropriate authority within the time prescribed under the relevant provision of Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017. It is submitted that as such therefore, the petitioners can be said to have substantially complied with relevant terms and conditions of the eligibility criteria.

5.7

It is submitted that even such lapse if any of non deposit of GST @18% on the amount of Rs.18000/- (bid/document fee) can be condoned and the bona fide of the petitioner no.1 ought to have been considered favourably by the respondent no.1 Corporation, more particularly, when there is a substantial compliance. It is submitted that even otherwise, such lapse, if any, could have been condoned and could not have resulted into rejecting the bid of the petitioner no.1 at technical bid stage.

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

5.8

It is submitted that therefore, the rejection of the bid of the petitioners at technical bid is arbitrary, hyper technical, against the public interest since it eliminated competition, which deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5.9

It is further submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners that as such, such condition of deposit of bid/tender fee of Rs.18000/-with GST @ 18% is not supported by law, more particularly, when the respondent no.1 itself has not given its GSTIN. Making above submissions and relying upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and Delhi High Court, it is requested to allow the present petition, more particularly, now subsequently only respondent no.2 herein is held to be qualified and therefore, there shall not be any competition and therefore, the public interest will suffer.

(1)

G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka [1990] 2 SCC 488 (paras 11, 14 and 15)

(2)

Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works [1991] 3 SCC 273 (para 6)

(3)

Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority [2013] 10 SCC 95

(4)

Om Prakash Sharma v. Ramesh Chand Prashar [2016] 12 SCC 632 (Paras 10 to 12)

(5)

Jal Mahel Resorts (P.) Ltd. v. K.P. Sharma [2014] 8 SCC 804 (paras 108 to 116 and 138).

(6)

Baksh Secuirty & Personnel Services (P.) Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed (P.) Ltd. [2016] 8 SCC 446.

(7)

MHS Infra Tech (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat AIR 2016 Guj. 16 (para 11).

(8)

PES Installations (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2015 Delhi 108. (paras 1, 17 and 24)

(9)

R.G. Holding (P.) Ltd. v. M.T.N.L AIR 2005 Delhi 134 .

(10)

R.G. Holding (P.) Ltd (supra)

Present petition is vehemently opposed by Shri Prashant G Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation. 6.1

It is vehemently submitted by Shri Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that admittedly the petitioners did not deposit/pay the entire bid document fee/bid processing fee of

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

Rs.21,240/- (Rs.18000/- + 18% GST) which was the mandatory requirement of the terms and condition of the tender notice and therefore, the same being essential conditions to be complied with, before the bid submitted by the bidder is considered, the petitioners are rightly held ineligible at the technical bid stage. It is submitted that the decision to consider the petitioners ineligible at the technical bid stage is absolutely in consonance with the relevant terms and conditions of the tender notice which is neither arbitrary nor mala fide.

6.2

It is vehemently submitted by Shri Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that merely because the petitioners could download the E Tender bid documents, the petitioners as such does not acquire any right in its favour to consider its bid which was submitted electronically, unless and until the petitioners comply with all other terms and conditions of the tender document/notice including that of deposit of bid document/bid processing fee.

6.3

It is vehemently submitted by Shri Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that as the entire process of inviting tender was through E Tender, if any party, who opens website of the respondent Corporation for the purpose of downloading E Tender Bid Document, then at that time, the first page which is provided to the said party in the Tender Consolidated Details in which bid document process fee is clearly mentioned as Rs.21240/-. For that, Shri Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has relied upon and drawn the attention of the copy of the "nProcure" Tender Consolidated Details produced along with affidavit in reply. It is submitted that in the said "nProcure" document, it was specifically case that the document fee and EMD Details is mandatory to be paid. It is further submitted that in the said tender, it was also specifically mentioned in Annexure A-24 (Instruction to Bidder regarding Tender Fee and EMD)that submission of EMD and Tender fee is for the purpose of opening bid, i.e. offer/tender of those tenderers whose EMD and Tender fee is received electronically shall be opened. However, for the purpose realization of EMD and Tender Fee, bidder was required to send EMD as well as Tender Fee in the required format in original through RPAD or Speed Post so as to reach the Accounts Department within 7 days from the last date of submission of price bid. It is submitted that everybody was informed about the amount to be paid towards bid Document Fee/Bid Processing Fee i.e. Rs.21240/-. It is submitted that as the entire process of invited tender through E Tender anybody could download E Tender Bid document, however for the purpose of considering such party as bidder, such party is required to deposit bid/document fee (entire) and also bid

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

security. It is submitted that only when the entire amount of bid document fee/bid processing fee and the EMD is deposited within the stipulated time as provided under the tender document, the receipt is generated in the record of the Corporation and on generation of the receipt, such party who had complied with all the terms and conditions at the initial stage namely deposit of entire amount of bid document fee and the EMD is considered to be the bidder/tenderer and only thereafter bid of such party/bidder is required to be considered. It is submitted that in the present case as the petitioners did not deposit the entire bid fee/tender fee, no such receipt was generated in favour of the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners are not considered to be the tenderer itself, when technical bid was processed and thereafter the financial bid was opened. It is submitted that therefore, when the petitioners have not been considered to be tenderer itself on non deposit of the entire amount of bid fee/tender fee, there is no question of considering the petitioners as tenderer/bidder. 6.4

It is vehemently submitted by Shri Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that in the present case E Tender Notice was published on website of the Corporation and downloading period of the Tender Document was from 01.08.2017 to 07.09.2017 upto 17.00 hrs. It is submitted that pre bid meeting (technical) was held on 22.08.2017 @ 16.00 hrs. It is submitted that nobody remained present on behalf of the petitioners in the pre bid meeting and therefore, no query was raised even with respect to the GST and/or GSTIN number. It is submitted that therefore, the submission on behalf of the petitioners that at the relevant time the petitioners did not deposit the GST amount (Rs.18000 + GST @18%) due to non availability of GST number and/or GSTIN is nothing but an afterthought. It is submitted that every other bidders in fact initially deposited the entire amount of Rs.21,240/- towards bid document fee/bid process fees with the Corporation and within the time prescribed as per the tender document. It is submitted that even thereafter as GST rate was changed and it was reduced to 12% the difference between 18% and 12% was refunded and returned to the concerned bidder. It is submitted that therefore, when all other bidders could deposit and/or deposited the entire amount of bid document fee/bid document processing fee of Rs.21240/-, the petitioners also to become tenderer/bidder also could have and ought to have deposited the entire bid document fee/bid processing fee. It is submitted that as per the "nprocure" document, bid document fee/bid processing fee was stated to be Rs.21,240/-

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

6.5.

It is vehemently submitted by Shri Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that in the present case the petitioners submitted bid online on 7.9.2017 and physical bid was received on 14.09.2017. It is submitted that as the petitioners did not pay the full bid document fee, which was mandatory, the petitioners were never considered to be tenderer itself. It is submitted that the petitioners sent the draft of differential amount of Bid document fee after the technical bid was opened on 18.09.2017. It is submitted that therefore, when the petitioners at initial stage only not fulfilled the mandatory condition of paying the required amount of Bid Document Fee and therefore, the respondent Corporation has never considered the petitioner as tenderer itself. It is submitted that any amount/differential amount deposited subsequently and after the relevant date as prescribed in the tender document, such payment cannot be considered to be a valid payment and/or such payment is not required to be considered at all, more particularly, in the present case the differential amount was deposited after technical bid was opened on 18.09.2017.

6.6

It is vehemently submitted by Shri Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that as such on 19.09.2017 itself the draft of differential amount was sent back/returned to the petitioners. It is submitted that the technical bid was opened on 18.09.2017 and the pre-bid was opened on 03.10.2017 and after the price bid was opened, the petitioners have preferred present petition on 3.10.2017. It is submitted that the petitioners did nothing, more particularly, did not approach this Court immediately after 18/19.09.2017.

6.7

It is further submitted by Shri Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that since the petitioners are never considered to be tenderer because of non fulfillment of primary condition of requirement of paying bid document fee as stated in the E Tender Document itself, the question of considering the petitioners as tenderer does not arise. It is submitted that therefore, it can be said that the petitioners are not part of the tender process at all as the petitioners are not considered to be tenderer/bidder at all.

6.8

It is further submitted by Shri Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that for participation of bid, one of the essential condition was to deposit the entire bid document fee and EMD. It is submitted that therefore, the deposit of entire bid document fee/EMD is an essential condition, which is required to be complied with before tender document/bid submitted is considered and/or before the concerned party like the petitioners are considered as bidder/tenderer. It is submitted that non fulfillment of essential

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

condition would render the concerned party ineligible and/or its bid is not required to be considered at all. In support of his above submission, Shri Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. (supra) as well as in the case of Aksh Security And Personnel Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) as well as in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Jt. Venture Consortium) [2016] 8 SCC 622 . Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has also relied upon the unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P. Kavitha v. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application 4731 of 2017]. 6.9

It is further submitted by Shri Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that the decision taken by the respondent Corporation is absolutely just, legal and absolutely in consonance with the terms and conditions of the tender document, which is neither perverse nor arbitrary and therefore, it is requested not to interfere with the same in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6.10 On scope of judicial review in the contractual matter, Shri Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2012] 8 SCC 212; in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India [1994] 6 SCC 651; in the case of Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [2007] 14 SCC 517; in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. [2016] 16 SCC 818 and in the case of Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corpn. Ltd. v. CSEPDI-Trishe Consortium [2017] 4 SCC 318. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 7.

Shri Mihir Thakore, learned counsel for the newly added respondent no.2 has submitted that to avoid any repetition, he adopts the submissions made on behalf of the respondent Corporation. It is submitted that as in the present case, there is non compliance at the entry stage itself and therefore, the decision of the Corporation not to consider the petitioners as tenderer/bidder itself and consequently not opening the price bid of the petitioners is absolutely just and in consonance with the terms and conditions of the tender. Therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd (supra), it is requested to dismiss the present petition.

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

In reply to the aforesaid submission, Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as such there is no delay at all in preferring the petition on 03.10.2017. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know only on 03.10.2017 and therefore, the present petition has been preferred on 03.10.2017. It is further submitted by Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners that as such deposit of the bid document fee cannot be said to be essential condition relatable to eligibility. It is submitted that in the present case the downloading is free of cost and therefore, non deposit of entire amount of bid document fee cannot be construed as non fulfillment of essential condition, for which, the petitioners bid is liable to be rejected outright. Making above submission, it is requested to allow the present petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such in the present case the petitioners are not considered to be tenderer at all by the respondent Corporation on non deposit of entire amount of bid document fee, which as such was required to be paid as per the terms and conditions of the tender document and "nProcure" document. It is required to be noted that as per "nProcure" document the party who submit its bid online was required to deposit/pay within the stipulated time the bid document fee/bid processing fee of Rs.21240/- which includes GST at 18%. It is an admitted position that when the petitioners submitted its bid online and thereafter in physical format the petitioners did not pay the entire amount of bid document fee/bid processing fee of Rs.21240/- and deposited only part of the bid document fee/bid processing fee i.e. Rs.18000/- only. At this stage, it is required to be noted that other two tenderers who submitted their bid, paid/deposited the entire document fee/bid processing fee i.e. Rs.21,240/-. Thus, in the tender consolidation details and "nProcure" tender consolidated details deposit of entire amount of document fee and EMD details was mandatory to be paid. Even as mentioned in Annexure A-24 (Instruction to Bidder regarding Tender Fee and EMD) submission of EMD and tender fee is for the purpose of opening bid. Therefore, only those parties who paid the EMD and tender fee electronically and thereafter in the physical format within the stipulated time is required to be considered the tenderers/bidders, whose bid is required to be opened and considered on merits subject to fulfillment of other terms and conditions, if any. Thus, as per the "nProcure" tender consolidated details and as per the instruction to bidders regarding tender, after the tender document is downloaded which was free and while submitting the tender electronically, the concerned tenderer/bidder was required to give details with respect to payment of EMD and tender fee electronically and for the purpose of realization of EMD and tender fee, bidder was required to send EMD and tender fee in the required format in original through RPAD/Speed Post so as to reach the Accounts Department

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

within 7 days from the last date of submission of price bid. It is required to be noted that as entire process inviting tender was through E Tender, downloading was free and if any party who open website of the respondent Corporation is allowed to download the entire tender document. However, thereafter for the purpose of considering such party as bidder/tenderer and its bid is opened and considered, such party is required to fulfill all the terms and conditions of the tender bid document. As per the procedure, after the tender documents are downloaded which as such was free of charge and thereafter the concerned parties who submits the bid, fulfills all the terms and conditions of the "nProcure" tender consolidated details including the deposit of entire bid document fee/bid processing fee and EMD within the stipulated time as mentioned in the tender document, in favour of such party/bidder receipt is generated and on generation of the receipt in the records of the Corporation, such party is considered to be tenderer/bidder and subject to fulfillment of other terms and conditions, if any, its bid is required to be opened and thereafter considered on merits. In the present case, it is an admitted position that as the petitioners did not deposit the entire bid document fee/bid processing fee at the time of submitting the bid/bid document and therefore, no such receipt in favour of petitioner has been generated like in the case of other two bidders who in fact paid the entire bid document fee/EMD and therefore, the petitioners are not considered at all tenderer/bidder and therefore, its bid has not been considered at the technical bid stage. The aforesaid decision of the respondent Corporation, therefore, as such cannot be said to be either arbitrary and/or mala fide and/or contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender document, more particularly, the terms and conditions mentioned in the "nprocure" tender consolidated details. In light of the above facts and circumstance of the case, few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the nature and scope of judicial review of the Constitutional Court/High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are required to be referred to. 9.1

In the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (supra) after considering the various other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point, more particularly, after considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Mandal (supra) and Tejas Constructions and Infrastructure (P) Ltd (supra), in para 23 and 24, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: "23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a)

the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities; (b)

fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by Courts is very limited;

(c)

In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by Courts is not warranted;

(d)

Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and

(e)

If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by Court is very restrictive since no person can claim fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.

24. Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions. (i)

Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: Ă˘â&#x201A;ŹĹ&#x201C;the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached? and;

(ii)

Whether public interest is affected.

If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226."

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

9.2

10.

In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has occasion to consider the nature and scope of judicial review in the tender matter/contractual matter. In the aforesaid decision, it is specifically observed and held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons v. Port of Bombay [1989] 3 SCC 293;Tata Cellular (supra) and Jagdish Mandal (supra) that the Constitutional Courts are concerned with the decision making process and the decision if challenged the decision having been arrived at through a valid process, the Constitutional Courts can interfere only if the decision is perverse. It is also further observed that however, the Constitutional Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not to substitute its view for that of the administrative authority. It is further observed that mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a Constitutional Court to interfere. It is further observed that the threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the Constitutional Court interferes with the decision making process or the decision.

Now, so far as submission on behalf of the petitioners that non deposit of entire amount of bid document fee/bid processing fee cannot be said to be an essential condition relatable to eligibility on merits and non deposit of entire amount of bid document fee/bid processing fee would not render the petitioners disqualified for considering its bid on merits is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such the respondent Corporation considered it as an essential condition. The respondent Corporation applied has the same unilaterally to all the bidders/persons/parties and other two bidders as such did deposit the entire bid document fee and the EMD. Not only that in the "nProcure" tender consolidated details which was available with the petitioners at the time when the petitioners downloaded the entire E Tender bid document, bid document process fee is stated to be Rs.21,240/-, which also specifically provides that document fee and EMD is mandatory to be paid. Even in the Instruction to Bidder regarding Tender Fee and EMD it has been specifically mentioned that EMD and tender fee is for the purpose of opening bid. Thus, as such, deposit of tender fee and EMD can be said to be an essential condition at the entry stage itself. As observed herein above, after the E Tender bid document is downloaded which was free of cost and when concerned party who has downloaded E tender document deposits the entire amount of bid document fee/bid processing fee and the EMD would get entry for the purpose of considering its bid at technical bid stage as well as price bid stage. Unless and until, the aforesaid amount is deposited as 31

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

required and within the stipulated time, such a party would not get entry at all and cannot be said to be tenderer/bidder. Therefore, as such there is no question of considering its bid as on non-fulfillment of aforesaid terms and conditions and non-deposit of entire bid tender document fee/bid processing fee, it cannot get the entry at all and it cannot be considered to be bidder/tenderer at all whose bid is required to be opened and/or considered. At this stage, few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point are required to be referred to. 10.1 In the case of the Central Coalfields Ltd. (supra), it is specifically observed and held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court must, as far as possible, avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the document meaningless and futile or reduce to silence any part of the document and make it altogether inapplicable. It is further observed that whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer, which should be respected and soundness of that decision cannot be questioned by Court. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the bid was rejected for non furnishing of bank guarantee in prescribed format. While submitting EMD by furnishing bank guarantee in format prescribed by GTC of another tender and the bidder took the plea that bank guarantee format of present tender was ambiguous. Rejecting the claim of the bidder and upholding the decision of the employer of rejection of bid for non-compliance of submitting the bank guarantee in prescribed format, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 31 to 38, 42 to 44, 47 to 49, 52, 55 and 56 has observed and held as under:

[31]

We were informed by the learned Attorney General that 9 of the 11 bidders furnished a bank guarantee in the prescribed and correct format. Under these circumstances, even after stretching our credulity, it is extremely difficult to understand why JVC was unable to access the prescribed format for the bank guarantee or furnish a bank guarantee in the prescribed format when every other bidder could do so or why it could not seek a clarification or why it could not represent against any perceived ambiguity. The objection and the conduct of JVC regarding the prescribed format of the bank guarantee or a supposed ambiguity in the NIT does not appear to be fully above board.

[32]

The core issue in these appeals is not of judicial review of the administrative action of CCL in adhering to the terms of the NIT and the GTC prescribed by it while dealing with bids furnished by participants in the bidding process. The core

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

issue is whether CCL acted perversely enough in rejecting the bank guarantee of JVC on the ground that it was not in the prescribed format, thereby calling for judicial review by a constitutional court and interfering with CCL's decision. [33]

In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, 1979 3 SCC 489 this Court held that the words used in a document are not superfluous or redundant but must be given some meaning and weightage:

"It is a well-settled rule of interpretation applicable alike to documents as to statutes that, save for compelling necessity, the Court should not be prompt to ascribe superfluity to the language of a document "and should be rather at the outset inclined to suppose every word intended to have some effect or be of some use". To reject words as insensible should be the last resort of judicial interpretation, for it is an elementary rule based on common sense that no author of a formal document intended to be acted upon by the others should be presumed to use words without a meaning. The court must, as far as possible, avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the document meaningless and futile or reduce to silence any part of the document and make it altogether inapplicable." [34]

In Ramana Dayaram Shetty case, the expression "registered IInd Class hotelier" was recognized as being inapt and perhaps ungrammatical; nevertheless common sense was not offended in describing a person running a registered II grade hotel as a registered II Class hotelier. Despite this construction in its favour, respondents 4 in that case were held to be factually ineligible to participate in the bidding process.

[35]

It was further held that if others (such as the appellant in that case) were aware that non-fulfillment of the eligibility condition of being a registered II Class hotelier would not be a bar for consideration, they too would have submitted a tender, but were prevented from doing so due to the eligibility condition, which was relaxed in the case of respondents 4. This resulted in unequal treatment in favour of respondents 4 treatment that was constitutionally impermissible. Expounding on this, it was held:

"It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be 33

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affectation of some right or denial of some privilege."

[36]

Applying this principle to the present appeals, other bidders and those who had not bid could very well contend that if they had known that the prescribed format of the bank guarantee was not mandatory or that some other term(s) of the NIT or GTC were not mandatory for compliance, they too would have meaningfully participated in the bidding process. In other words, by re-arranging the goalposts, they were denied the "privilege" of participation.

[37]

For JVC to say that its bank guarantee was in terms stricter than the prescribed format is neither here nor there. It is not for the employer or this Court to scrutinize every bank guarantee to determine whether it is stricter than the prescribed format or less rigorous. The fact is that a format was prescribed and there was no reason not to adhere to it. The goalposts cannot be re-arranged or asked to be re arranged during the bidding process to affect the right of some or deny a privilege to some.

[38]

In G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka, 1990 2 SCC 488 both the principles laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty were reaffirmed. It was reaffirmed that the party issuing the tender (the employer) "has the right to punctiliously and rigidly" enforce the terms of the tender. If a party approaches a Court for an order restraining the employer from strict enforcement of the terms of the tender, the Court would decline to do so. It was also reaffirmed that the employer could deviate from the terms and conditions of the tender if the "changes affected all intending applicants alike and were not objectionable." Therefore, deviation from the terms and conditions is permissible so long as the level playing field is maintained and it does not result in any arbitrariness or discrimination in the Ramana Dayaram Shetty sense.

[42]

Unfortunately, this Court did not at all advert to the privilegeof-participation principle laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty and accepted in G.J. Fernandez. In other words, this Court did not consider whether, as a result of the deviation, others could also have become eligible to participate in the bidding process. This principle was ignored in Poddar Steel.

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

[43]

Continuing in the vein of accepting the inherent authority of an employer to deviate from the terms and conditions of an NIT, and re-introducing the privilege-of-participation principle and the level playing field concept, this Court laid emphasis on the decision making process, particularly in respect of a commercial contract. One of the more significant cases on the subject is the three-judge decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 6 SCC 651 which gave importance to the lawfulness of a decision and not its soundness. If an administrative decision, such as a deviation in the terms of the NIT is not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, mala fide or biased, the Courts will not judicially review the decision taken. Similarly, the Courts will not countenance interference with the decision at the behest of an unsuccessful bidder in respect of a technical or procedural violation. This was quite clearly stated by this Court (following Tata Cellular) in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, 2007 14 SCC 517 in the following words:

"Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold." This Court then laid down the questions that ought to be asked in such a situation. It was said: "Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached"; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226."

[44]

On asking these questions in the present appeals, it is more than apparent that the decision taken by CCL to adhere to the terms and conditions of the NIT and the GTC was certainly not irrational in any manner whatsoever or intended to favour anyone. The decision was lawful and not unsound.

[47]

The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty the terms of the NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision "that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached" as held in Jagdish Mandal followed in Michigan Rubber.

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

[48]

Therefore, whether a term of the NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty. However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot.

[49]

Again, looked at from the point of view of the employer if the Courts take over the decision-making function of the employer and make a distinction between essential and nonessential terms contrary to the intention of the employer and thereby re-write the arrangement, it could lead to all sorts of problems including the one that we are grappling with. For example, the GTC that we are concerned with specifically states in Clause 15.2 that "Any Bid not accompanied by an acceptable Bid Security/EMD shall be rejected by the employer as non-responsive." Surely, CCL ex facie intended this term to be mandatory, yet the High Court held that the bank guarantee in a format not prescribed by it ought to be accepted since that requirement was a non-essential term of the GTC. From the point of view of CCL the GTC has been impermissibly re-written by the High Court.

[52]

There is a wholesome principle that the Courts have been following for a very long time and which was articulated in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, 1936 AIR(PC) 253 namely

"Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden." There is no valid reason to give up this salutary principle or not to apply it mutatis mutandis to bid documents. This principle deserves to be applied in contractual disputes, particularly in commercial contracts or bids leading up to commercial contracts, where there is stiff competition. It must follow from the application of the principle laid down in Nazir Ahmed that if the employer prescribes a particular format of the bank guarantee to be furnished, then a bidder ought to submit the 37

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

bank guarantee in that particular format only and not in any other format. However, as mentioned above, there is no inflexibility in this regard and an employer could deviate from the terms of the bid document but only within the parameters mentioned above. [55]

On the basis of the available case law, we are of the view that since CCL had not relaxed or deviated from the requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee in the prescribed format, in so far as the present appeals are concerned every bidder was obliged to adhere to the prescribed format of the bank guarantee. Consequently, the failure of JVC to furnish the bank guarantee in the prescribed format was sufficient reason for CCL to reject its bid.

[56]

There is nothing to indicate that the process by which the decision was taken by CCL that the bank guarantee furnished by JVC ought to be rejected was flawed in any manner whatsoever. Similarly, there is nothing to indicate that the decision taken by CCL to reject the bank guarantee furnished by JVC and to adhere to the requirements of the NIT and the GTC was arbitrary or unreasonable or perverse in any manner whatsoever.'

10.2 In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) in para 50 and after considering earlier decision in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd.(supra), Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons (supra), Raman Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority [1979] 3 SCC 489, it is observed and held that the holder/employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. It is further observed that Constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of terms of the tender conditions. It is further observed that it is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the Constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given. 10.3 Applying law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, to the facts of the case on hand, the decision of the respondent Corporation in not treating and/or considering the petitioners as tenderer/bidder and in holding the petitioners ineligible even prior to technical bid stage, cannot be said to be perverse and/or arbitrary and suffering from vice of favoritism. The understanding on 38

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

the part of the respondent Corporation with respect to applying relevant terms and conditions of the tender document and to treat and/or consider the deposit of bid document fee/bid processing fee and the EMD before relevant date as essential condition to be fulfilled and/or complied with the at the entry stage itself cannot be said to be perverse and/or arbitrary to the terms and conditions of the tender document. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such there are no specific allegation of mala fide and/or favoritism. The terms and conditions of the tender document are applied uniformly all other bidders had complied with the aforesaid and have deposited the entire amount of bid document fee i.e. Rs.21,240/-(Rs.18000/- + GST @18%) and EMD. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the pre bid meeting held on 22.08.2017. Admittedly, representative of the petitioners did not remain present in the pre-bid meeting and did not raise any query with respect to the GSTIN number etc. If the petitioners had any doubt, it could have and ought to have sought clarification from the authority concerned as mentioned in the tender document. In the "nProcure" tender consolidated details, it has been specifically mentioned that in case bidder needs any clarifications and/or if training is required to participate online tenders, they can contact (n)Procure Support Team. Moreover, the petitioner could have and ought to have at least made representation to the respondent Corporation prior to submission of the bid that in absence of GSTIN number and as there is ambiguity, it is not possible for the petitioners to deposit the amount of GST. The petitioners neither sought any clarification nor did it make any representation to the respondent Corporation. Therefore, even the case on behalf of the petitioners so pleaded in the petition that the petitioners did not deposit the amount of GST in absence of GST registration/GSTIN is nothing but an afterthought. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such the petitioners was not required to deposit the amount of GST. The petitioners and others were required to deposit as such Rs.21,240/- towards bid document fee/bid processing fee which includes GST amount at 18%. Therefore, there was no question of furnishing any details of GST registration/GSTIN, as now stated by the petitioners. At this stage, it is required to be noted even at the cost of repetition that other two bidders did deposit the entire amount of Rs.21,240/- and thereby complied with the relevant terms and conditions/essential conditions. 11.

Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioners that subsequently the petitioners in fact sent the demand draft of difference of amount of bid document fee by sending demand draft subsequently which was returned 39

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

and even thereafter deposit the amount of GST on reverse charge basis and therefore, there is not loss to the respondent Corporation is neither here nor there. What is required to be considered as payment of entire amount of bid document fee/bid processing fee and the EMD at the relevant time and before the prescribed period mentioned in the tender document. As observed herein above, such a requirement was required to be complied with the entry stage itself. As observed herein above, unless and until, entire amount of bid document fee/bid processing fee and the EMD is deposited the persons who submitted bid would not get entry at all and only after the aforesaid amount is deposited/paid and receipt is generated, the concerned party can be said to be tenderer/bidder whose bid is required to be considered at technical stage and thereafter on fulfillment of other terms and conditions, its price bid is required to be considered. 12.

Now, so far as submission on behalf of the petitioners that such condition cannot be said to be essential condition is concerned, considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and when the Corporation applied such condition to all the bidders and as such other bidders also complied with the same, thereafter it will not be open for the petitioners and that too after participating in the tender process that such a condition cannot be said to be essential condition. Similarly, submission on behalf of the petitioners that such a condition is not backed by law and therefore, such a condition could not have been provided is concerned, once having participated in the tender process thereafter and having found ineligible on the ground of non compliance of essential condition of non deposit of entire bid tender document fee and consequently not getting the entry at the initial stage itself, thereafter, it would not be open for the petitioners to challenge the condition and/to contend that such a condition was not warranted. 12.1 Now, so far as submission on behalf of the petitioner that once the petitioners downloaded the entire tender documents and submitted its bid, the bid submitted by the petitioner is required to be considered at technical stage and price bid stage is concerned, it is required to be noted that entire tender process was through E Tender process and downloading of tender document was free. Unless and until all the terms and conditions of the tender document, more particularly, "nProcure"and the essential conditions are complied with the petitioners/bidders would not get right automatically to consider him eligible. Downloading of tender document is different thing then thereafter getting the entry after complying with the terms and conditions of the tender document "nProcure" requirement. Therefore, merely because the petitioner and others were permitted to download the tender document free of cost, unless and until all the terms and conditions are satisfied, it does not get any right to

Nila Infrastructure Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation

consider its bid. Mere downloading of tender document cannot be said to be entry at the initial stage to consider such person who has downloaded as bidder/tenderer. 12.2 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioners that earlier the tender process was canceled as only one bidder was there and therefore, it was the case of single bid and in the present case also two bidders other than petitioners submitted their bids one bidder was found to be ineligible and therefore, only respondent no.2 would be there and it would again be a case of single tender and therefore, again entire tender process is required to be canceled is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such no such case has been pleaded. However, in the affidavit in reply, it is specifically submitted on behalf of the respondent Corporation that aforesaid shall not be applicable in case of second time tender process. 13.

Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decisions of the G.J.Fernandez (supra), Poddar Steel Corporation (supra), Rashmi Metaliks Limited (supra), Om Prakash Sharma (supra), Jal Mahal Resorts (P.) Ltd. (supra), Baksh Security And Personnel Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), MHS Infra Tech Pvt Ltd (supra), PES Installations Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and R.G. Holding Pvt Ltd (supra) by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said decisions shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. (supra) and Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court did consider the aforesaid decisions and has distinguished the same on facts. Therefore, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. (supra) and Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), we are of the opinion that impugned decision cannot be said to be either perverse and/or arbitrary and/or mala fide and therefore, the same does not require any interference of this Court in exercise of under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

14.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition fails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

SANDIPKUMAR KIRANKUMAR SHARMA V. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION Title

Sandipkumar Kirankumar Sharma v. State Election Commission

Date of Order/Judgment

15.11.2017

Citation

(2018) 9 GSTL 363 (Gujarat) (2018) 66 GST 376 (Gujarat) (2018) 2 TMI 1539 (Gujarat) (2018) 91 taxmann.com 189 (Gujarat)

Decision

In favour of petitioner and against respondent

Provision involved

Article 279A of Constitution of India read with section 1 of CGST/SGST/UTGST/IGST Acts, 2017; Election code of conduct

Gist of Case By virtue of 101st Constitutional amendment, Article 279A in Constitution of India was inserted, which empowers the Hon'ble President to constitute a Council to be called the Goods and Services Tax Council. Under Article 279A(4), Goods and Services Tax Council is empowered to make its recommendations to the Union and the States, on taxes, cesses and surcharges etc. As per Article 279A(9), every decision of the Council is to be taken in a meeting, where majority of not less than three fourths of the weighted votes of the members are present and give votes. The court observed that the recommendations made by the Council are ultimately accepted by the government. Merely because the Council has met and made its recommendations, it cannot be said that such recommendations and steps taken by the Council are in violation of the model Code of Conduct, which is in operation in the State of Gujarat. The Council is a constitutional body and is constituted only for the purpose of making recommendations by holding meetings. When 22 meetings were already held and 23rd meeting was scheduled on 9th and 10th November, 2017 at Guwahati and such recommendations are made for making suggestions to the Union and the States on taxes, cesses and surcharges etc., it cannot be said that same will violate the Code of Conduct, which is in operation in the State of Gujarat. In any event, when the body constituted under the Constitution is required to meet periodically to make its recommendations to the Union and all the States, it cannot be said that such meeting was held and recommendations were made, only to appease the voters in the ensuing election in the State of Gujarat. There was also no basis for making allegations by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, Department did not find any merit in the petition and the same was accordingly 42

Sandipkumar Kirankumar Sharma v. State Election Commission

dismissed at the stage of admission. Therefore, it was held that Goods and Services Tax Council is an independent body constituted under article 279A of Constitution, which is required to meet periodically, to make its recommendations to Union and States, on taxes, cesses and surcharges etc and it cannot be said that recommendations made by Goods and Services Tax Council are in violation of Election Code of Conduct.

Text of Case IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R. Subhash Reddy, CJ. and Vipul M. Pancholi, J. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 239 of 2017 REPRESENTED BY:

Ms. Sneha A. Joshi, Advocate, for the Petitioner.

Shri Kamal B. Trivedi, Advocate General with Ms. Sangita Vishen, Assistant Government Pleader, for the Respondent.

ORDER PER: R. SUBHASH REDDY, CJ. (ORAL) – This petition is filed by way of Public Interest Litigation with the prayers, which read as under: “a.

Be pleased to admit this petition.

Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent no. 2 for postponement of the meeting and further if the decisions taken whereof, the same should not be declared publicly till the election is over in the interest of justice.

Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that whatever decision may be taken by the respondent’s especially respondent no.2 GST Council may be declared as null and void and is requires to be quashed and set aside in the interest.

Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue suitable direction in the interest of justice.

Such and further relief(s) that is just deems fit may be granted.”

This petition is filed by impleading the State Election Commission as the 1st respondent, Chairman of the Goods and Services Tax Council as the 2nd respondent and the Secretary, Ministry of Finance as the 3rd respondent. The Goods and Services Tax Council, a body constituted under the

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

provisions of the Constitution of India, held its 23rd meeting at Guwahati on 9th and 10th November, 2017. This petition was filed on 10-11-2017. 3.

As much as the meeting was already held on 9th and 10th of November, 2017, the relief sought for in paragraph 13(b) of the petition has become infructuous. In the relief sought for in paragraph 13(c) of the petition, the petitioner prayed to declare the decisions taken by the 2nd respondent Council, as null and void and also to quash the same.

Such relief is sought on the ground that, the 1st respondent Election Commission has already notified the Code of Conduct of elections to Gujarat Legislative Assembly to be held on 9th and 14th December, 2017 and Election Code is in operation. It is the case of the petitioner that only as a political strategy, such meeting was conducted in violation of the Code of Conduct. It is alleged that the recommendations made in the 9th and 10th November, 2017 Council meeting are only to appease the voters in the ensuing elections.

We have heard Ms. Sneha Joshi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, Learned Advocate General appearing with Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, Learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on advance copy served on the Government.

As the papers are served on the Learned Advocate General, he is present when the matter is called and it is brought to our notice that the Goods and Services Tax Council is an independent body constituted under Article 279A of the Constitution. It is stated that the Goods and Services Tax Council regularly meets to make its recommendations and said recommendations are ultimately to be accepted by the Government. It is submitted that as much as the Goods and Services Tax Council is an independent body, which is required to meet periodically, to make its recommendations, in terms of Article 279A of the Constitution of India, it cannot be said that the recommendations made by the Goods and Services Tax Council are in violation of the Code of Conduct. It is submitted that earlier, 22 meetings were already held by the Council and the meeting held on 9th and 10th November, 2017 was the 23rd meeting at Guwahati.

By virtue of constitutional amendment, Article 279A is inserted, which empowers the Honâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ble President to constitute a Council to be called the Goods and Services Tax Council. Under Article 279A(4), Goods and Services Tax Council is empowered to make its recommendations to the Union and the States, on taxes, cesses and surcharges etc. As per Article 279A(9), every decision of the Council is to be taken in a meeting, where majority of not less than three-fourths of the weighted votes of the members present and voted.

The recommendations made by the Council are ultimately to be accepted by the Government. Merely because the Council has met and made its

Kakali Bera v. Union of India

recommendations, it cannot be said that such recommendations and steps taken by the Council are in violation of the model Code of Conduct, which is in operation in the State of Gujarat. The Council is a constitutional body and is constituted only for the purpose of making recommendations by holding meetings. When 22 meetings were already held and 23rd meeting was scheduled on 9th and 10th November, 2017 at Guwahati and such recommendations are made for making suggestions to the Union and the States on taxes, cesses and surcharges etc., it cannot be said that same will violate the Code of Conduct, which is in operation in the State of Gujarat. 9.

Further, it is also brought to our notice by the Learned Advocate General that earlier, when elections were to be held in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana etc., a petition by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18 of 2017 was filed before the Honâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ble Supreme Court in which, relief was sought to stop the presentation of the Budget, on the eve of elections, alleging that the same will influence the voters. Same was dismissed at the stage of admission by order dated 23rd January, 2017. A copy of the order is also produced during the course of hearing. In any event, when the body constituted under the Constitution is required to meet periodically to make its recommendations to the Union and all the States, it cannot be said that such meeting was held and recommendations were made, only to appease the voters in the ensuing election in the State of Gujarat. There is also no basis for making allegations by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.

KAKALI BERA V. UNION OF INDIA Title

Kakali Bera v. Union of India

Date of Order/Judgment

17.01.2018

Citation

(2018) 66 GST 584 (Calcutta) (2018) 1 TMI 1003 (Calcutta) (2018) 91 taxmann.com 283 (Calcutta)

Decision

In favour of respondent and against assessee

Provision involved

Article 226 of Constitution; Factoring of GST in Tender

Gist of Case In the instant case, a tender process was initiated by Geological Survey of India. It was a case of petitioner that when financial bid was opened, the petitioner was found to be the lowest tenderer. Thereafter, authorities enquired as to whether the 45

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

amount quoted by participants included GST or not, in response to this enquiry, petitioner stated that the amount quoted by her did not include GST as at time of initiation of tender process, GST was not in force. However, other participants apparently claimed that GST was included in their quoted price. Authorities found that the petitioner was not the tenderer of the lowest rate as the rates quoted by other tenderers were after factoring GST component which was much lower. Court observed that the authorities enquired from the participants as to whether the bids of the participants included the imposition of GST or not. The authorities had, therefore, given a level playing field to all the participants participating in the tender process. The action of the authorities in obtaining information from the participants as to the tax implications cannot faulted. On evaluation, the authorities found the price quoted by C (the successful bidder) to be lower than that of the petitioner after taking GST implications. Such a decision cannot be faulted as being perverse. It was thus held that there was no material irregularity in the decision making process of the respondent authorities or their decision warranting an interference by the writ Court.

Text of Case HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Debangsu Basak, J. W.P. (C) NO. 569 OF 2018

ORDER 1.

A tender process initiated by the Geological Survey of India, Eastern Region by a notice inviting tender dated April 27, 2017 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petitioner was found to be technically qualified and their financial bid was opened. At the opening of the financial bid, the petitioners were found to be the L-1 tenderer. He refers to page 73 of the writ petition in support of his contention. Thereafter, the authorities had enquired as to whether the amount quoted by the participants included GST or not. In response to such enquiry, the petitioners had stated that, the amount quoted by the petitioners did not include GST as at the time of initiation of the tender process, GST was not in force. The other participant apparently had claimed that, GST was included in the quoted price. The authorities thereafter did not find the petitioners to be the lowest tenderer as the rate quoted by the other tenderer after factoring GST component was found to be lower. He submits that, the finding of the authorities is perverse.

Kakali Bera v. Union of India

The respondents are represented. 3.

Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, the work order has since been issued. The tender process was not finalized with the first declaration of the petitioner being the lowest tenderer. It was within the power of the respondent authorities to enquire from the participants as to whether the final price quoted by a participant included tax components or not. Such enquiry was made. The successful bidder had quoted a price which included GST. Finding that, the financial implication in accepting the tender of the successful bidder would be less than that of the petitioners, the respondent authorities had accepted such bid of the successful bidder. There is no infirmity in the action taken by the authorities. Moreover, the work order has since been issued in October, 2017. The writ Court should not intervene in such factual scenario. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.

As noted above, the tender process initiated by the tender notice dated April 27, 2017 is under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioners were admittedly found to be technically qualified and their financial bids were opened. At the initial stage of the financial bid, the petitioners were declared to be the lowest tenderer. The authorities enquired from the participants as to whether the bids of the participants included the imposition of GST or not. The authorities had, therefore, given a level playing field to all the participants participating in the tender process. The action of the authorities in obtaining information from the participants as to the tax implications cannot faulted. It is within their rights to have such information. Apparently, the petitioners contended that, their bid did not include GST and that, the employer has to pay extra on account of GST. The successful bidder, however, stated that, their price included GST. On evaluation, the authorities found the price quoted by the successful bidder to be lower than that of the petitioner after taking GST implications. Such a decision cannot faulted as being perverse.

In such circumstances, I find no material irregularity in the decision making process of the respondent authorities or their decision warranting an interference by the writ Court. WP No.569(W) of 2018 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

K.K. RAMESH V. UNION OF INDIA Title

K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India

Date of Order/Judgment

15.03.2018

Citation

(2018) 11 GSTL 337 (Madras) (2018) 66 GST 638 (Madras) (2018) 3 TMI 1451 (Madras) (2018) 91 taxmann.com 416 (Madras)

Decision

Writ petition disposed off

Provision involved

Article 279A of Constitution of India read with section 7 of CGST/SGST/UTGST/IGST Acts, 2017

Gist of Case The assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for inclusion of petrol and diesel under the ambit of GST to ensure â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;One Nation One Taxâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; as the prices of petrol diesel and other essential goods would come down after its inclusion in GST. It was held that the High Court was not entrusted with power to issue any directions to the Government for inclusion of petrol and diesel under GST. It is only the prerogative of Central Government to act on recommendations of GST Council for its inclusion under GST.

Text of Case HIGH COURT OF MADRAS M. SATHYANARAYANAN AND MRS. R. HEMALATHA, JJ. W.P. (MD) NO. 5484 OF 2018

ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed as a 'Public Interest Litigation' by the petitioner/party-in-person, stating among other things, that Goods and Service Tax is based on two parliamentary Acts, namely the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, for the covered object of "One Nation One Tax" and the said Act came to be passed during April, 2017. 2.

The grievance now expressed by the petitioner is that though the main aim of Goods and Service Tax Act, is "One Nation One Tax", the petrol and diesel having not been brought under the purview/control under the Goods and Service Tax Act and that apart price of per litre of the said fuels also

K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India

fixed daily and it has reached all time high now, despite the fact that the International market price of crude oil per barrel is very low. 3.

The petitioner/party-in-person by drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as well as typed-set of documents and would submit that an exorbitant increase in the selling price of petroleum products, directly affects the common man for the reason that most of the Goods are transported, through road/service transport and any increase in price of the fuel would bound to increase the selling price of the commodities, especially essential commodities and it is high time that the petrol and diesel prices should be brought within the ambit of Goods and Service Tax (GST) and also pointed out in this regard that the petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 16.06.2018 to the respondents and inspite of receipt and acknowledgment, no response is forthcoming and therefore, he is constrained to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition.

Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr.J.Jeyakumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 and seeks time to get instructions as to the steps taken to bring the petroleum products within the ambit of Goods and Service Tax.

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

The Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (Central Act 12 of 2017) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), came to be passed "To make a provision for levy and collection of Tax on intra-State supply of goods or services or both by the Central Government and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto". 7. Section 2(36) of the 'the Act' defines "Council', which means "the Goods and Services Tax Council established under Article 279A of the Constitution of India". 8. Section 9 of the 'the Act' deals with 'Levy and collection' and it is relevant to extract the same:"Levy and Collection:- 9 (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2), there shall be levied a tax called the central goods and services tax on all intra-State supplies of goods or services or both, except on the supply alcoholic liquor for human consumption, on the value determined under Section 15 and at such rates, not exceeding twenty per cent, as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council and collected in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be paid by the taxable person.

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

(2) The Central tax on the supply of petroleum crude, high speed diesel, motor spirit (commonly known as petrol), natural gas and aviation turbine fuel shall be levied with effect from such date as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council. (3) The Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify categories of supply of goods or services or both, the tax on which shall be paid on reverse charge basis by the recipient of such goods or services or both and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such recipient as if he is the person liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such goods or services or both. (4) The central tax in respect of the supply of taxable goods or services or both by a supplier, who is not registered, to a registered person shall be paid by such person on reverse charge basis as the recipient and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such recipient as if he is the person liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such goods or services or both. (5) The Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify categories of services the tax on intra-State supplies of which shall be paid by the electronic commerce operator if such services are supplied through it, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such electronic commerce operator as if he is the supplier liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such services: Provided that where an electronic commerce operator does not have a physical presence in the taxable territory, any person representing such electronic commerce operator for any purpose in the taxable territory shall be liable to pay tax: Provided further that where an electronic commerce operator does not have a physical presence in the taxable territory and also he does not have a representative in the said territory, such electronic commerce operator shall appoint a person in the taxable territory for the purpose of paying tax and such person shall be liable to pay tax." 7.

Section 11 of 'the Act' speaks about the 'power to grant exemption from Tax' and it is extracted below:â&#x20AC;&#x201D; "Power to grant exemption from Tax:- 11(1) Where the Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, exempt generally, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, goods or services or both of any specified

K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India

description from the whole or any part of the lax leviable thereon with effect from such date as may be specified in such notification. (2) Where the Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, on the recommendations of the Council, by special order in each case, under circumstances of an exceptional nature to be stated in such order, exempt from payment of tax any goods or services or both on which tax is leviable. (3) The Government may, if it considers necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of clarifying the scope or applicability of any notification issued under sub-Section (1) or order issued under subSection (2), insert an explanation in such notification or order, as the case may be, by notification at any time within one year of issue of the notification under sub-Section (1) or order under sub-Section (2), and every such explanation shall have effect as if it had always been the part of the first such notification or order, as the case may be. Explanation.- For the purposes of this Section, where an exemption in respect of any goods or services or both from the whole or part of the tax leviable thereon has been granted absolutely, the registered person supplying such goods or services or both shall not collect the tax, in excess of the effective rate, on such supply of goods or services or both." 8.

The prayer sought for by the petitioner/party-in-person, in the present Writ Petition filed as a 'Public Interest Litigation', is that the petroleum and diesel should be brought forthwith within the ambit of Goods and Service Tax, so that the selling price would drastically reduce and as a consequence, the prices of the Goods and essential commodities would come down, which would ultimately benefit to the common people, especially poor and down trodden. No doubt, in the event of prices of essential commodities being brought down through a permanent mode, common man would definitely be benefited.

The primordial question that remains for consideration in this petition is whether this Court in exercise of its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue any positive direction to the Goods and Central Services Tax council to bring petrol and diesel prices within the ambit of Goods and Service Tax?.

10.

In the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot issue any direction for the reason that it is for the Goods and Service Tax council to take a call in that aspect and Section 9(2) of the 'Act' also deals with the Central Tax on the supply of petroleum crude, high speed diesel, motor spirit (commonly known as petrol), natural gas and aviation turbine fuel.

Chapter 1: Goods & Service Tax: General Matters and Constitutional Validity

11.

The Goods and Service Tax council is having representation of the State Governments also and therefore, their views have also to be elicited, before the Goods and Service Tax council take a call as to bring the petrol and diesel prices within the ambit of Goods and Service Tax.

12.

The Government on the basis of recommendations of the Goods and Service Tax council is also having the power for issuing a notification to exempt generally either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified therein and it can act on public interest and also on the recommendation of the council to exempt from payment of Tax of any goods or services or both, on which, the Tax is levied. Hence, it is the prerogative of the Central Government to take a call on the basis of the recommendations of the Goods and Central Tax council.

13.

It is a well-settled position of law that "it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken and the extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case" (Akhtar Hasan Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2012 (5) SCC (FJ) 12.

14.

The policy decision can be interfered with only it is found to be arbitrary or based on an irrelevant consideration or malafide or against any statutory provisions (Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India [2016] 6 SCC 408.

15.

In the considered opinion of this Court, in the light of the legal principles initiated by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above cited decisions coupled with the fact that it is for the Central Government to act on the recommendations of the Goods and Service Tax council as to bring the petroleum and diesel prices within the ambit of the Goods and Service Tax, this Court is not in a position to issue any positive direction to the respondents to consider the prayer sought for by the petitioner.

16.

In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.