I. HIGH COURT
26. [2021-TIOL-121-HC-Tripura-GST] M/s Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.
Non-preparation of E-way bill not attributable to any intention for evasion of tax, should not be exigible to 100% of the tax as penalty
FACTS
The petitioner company was transporting some goods when the consignment was intercepted by the Enforcement Wing. The goods were seized and duty liability was determined. They were unable to produce E-way bill against the vehicle; an equivalent (additional) amount of penalty was also imposed. A show cause notice was issued u/s 129(3) of the CGST Act, section 68(3) of the UTGST Act and section 20 of the IGST Act. It was claimed that for two vehicles used consecutively the valid E-way bills were generated, but due to sudden lockdown the consignment could not be brought into the State of Tripura within time. They could not generate a new E-bill against a new vehicle and were compelled to cause trans-shipment as the earlier vehicle broke down while being stranded during the nationwide lockdown.
HELD
The High Court noted that the breach falls within the ambit of section 122(xiv) of the CGST Act and as such the petitioner is excisable to the penalty. However, the Superintendent has exceeded his jurisdiction in imposing the (additional) penalty. For the breach, which falls u/s 122(xiv), the penalty is fixed at Rs. 10,000. Penalty of an amount equivalent to tax is leviable for the incidents when the tax is sought to be evaded or not deducted u/s 51. There is no dispute about the payment of tax; however, the Revenue authority shall be at liberty to verify the facts to ascertain whether or not tax has been paid. In the event of non-payment of tax, appropriate action be taken for realising the said tax. In the circumstances, the Court set aside the order of the (additional) penalty and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 10,000 as penalty for the breach within a period of one month.
II. AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING
27. [2021-TIOL-33-AAR-GST] Dharmashil Agencies Date of order: 30th July, 2020
The place of supply of intermediary services provided to a foreign company is the location of the supplier – Accordingly, being an intra-state supply CGST and SGST is payable
FACTS
The applicant has submitted that it has entered into an agreement with a company in Japan to sell its machinery and is receiving commission income in foreign currency. The applicant sought advance ruling on the question whether to charge CGST and SGST or IGST looking to the nature of the transaction.
HELD
The services provided by the applicant, i.e., ‘intermediary services’, appears at sub-section (8)(b) of section 13 of the IGST Act. And sub-section (8) clearly mentions that the place of supply in respect of services described under the said sub-section shall be the location of the supplier of services. Further, the supplier is the applicant and the location of the said supplier is in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Since the location of the applicant, who is the supplier of services, is in Gujarat and both the supplier of service as well as the place of supply of service is in Gujarat, the supply of services would be considered akin to intra-state supply of services and would be liable to CGST and SGST.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take,
but by the moments that take our breath away
– Maya Angelou
