2018 (1) TMI 276 - HC - GST

Delhi High Court Orders Clarification on IGST Double Payment Issue

The Delhi High Court addressed the issue of potential double payment of IGST highlighted by the petitioner. The court directed the respondents to clarify ... Exemption from payment of court fees - double levy of IGST - duty deferment mechanism - notice and filing of counter-affidavit - disposal of interim stay application with observationsExemption from payment of court fees - Exemption application filed by the petitioner under CM No. 47023/2017 - HELD THAT: - The Court allowed the exemption application, permitting the petitioner to proceed without payment of the court fee subject to all just exceptions. No further reasons or conditions were recorded beyond the usual qualification 'subject to all just exceptions.'Exemption application allowed subject to all just exceptions.Double levy of IGST - duty deferment mechanism - notice and filing of counter-affidavit - Allegation of potential double payment of IGST and direction to respondents to clarify the position - HELD THAT: - The petitioner drew the Court's attention to an illustration in Annexure P-2 contending that IGST would be payable both on import release (on import value plus basic customs duty) and again on the retail sale consideration, resulting in double payment. The Court did not adjudicate the substantive claim on the merits but directed the respondents to obtain instructions and clarify the position on this aspect in the counter-affidavit. The Court ordered that the counter-affidavit be filed within four weeks and any rejoinder within four weeks thereafter, and the matter was listed for further consideration on the specified date.Respondents directed to obtain instructions and clarify the asserted double levy of IGST in the counter-affidavit; matter re-listed for further hearing.Disposal of interim stay application with observations - notice and filing of counter-affidavit - Application for interim stay ancillary to the writ petition - HELD THAT: - The Court disposed of the application for stay subject to the observation that if the petitioner ultimately succeeds on the substantive issue, appropriate orders will be passed. The order therefore dealt with the interim relief interlocutorily and without final adjudication of the merits.Application for stay disposed of with observations; interim relief not finally adjudicated.Final Conclusion: Exemption from court fees granted; respondents directed to file a counter-affidavit addressing the petitioner's contention of double IGST payment and obtain instructions thereon; interim stay application disposed of with observations and the matter listed for further hearing. Issues: Double payment of IGST, Clarification on tax calculation, Stay applicationIn the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court, the court addressed the issue of potential double payment of IGST highlighted by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel pointed out an example where IGST would be paid twice, once on the import value of goods and then again on the entire sale consideration. The court directed the respondents to clarify this matter in the counter affidavit and scheduled a re-listing on 8th March, 2018 for further consideration. The court indicated that if the petitioner's claim is substantiated, appropriate orders would be issued. Additionally, the court disposed of the application for stay with the mentioned observations.The judgment emphasized the importance of resolving the ambiguity regarding the calculation of IGST to prevent any unjust double taxation. The court instructed the respondents to provide clarification on the specific scenario presented by the petitioner to ensure a fair and accurate assessment of the tax liability. By setting a deadline for filing the counter affidavit and scheduling a re-listing, the court demonstrated its commitment to thoroughly examine the issue and make informed decisions based on the clarified position presented by the respondents.Furthermore, the court's decision to dispose of the stay application with the mentioned observations indicated its intention to proceed with the case while ensuring that any potential adverse effects on the petitioner are mitigated. This approach showcased the court's balanced consideration of the petitioner's concerns and the need for a comprehensive understanding of the tax implications involved. Overall, the judgment reflected a diligent and meticulous approach by the court in addressing the complexities of tax calculation and ensuring a just resolution for all parties involved.