TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>HC upholds GST levy on services to foreign universities, clarifies Section 74(9) CGST Act adjudication process</h1> <h3>M/s STUDY METRO EDU CONSULTANT PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY ABHISHEK BAJAJ Versus JOINT DIRECTOR AND OTHERS</h3> M/s STUDY METRO EDU CONSULTANT PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY ABHISHEK BAJAJ Versus JOINT DIRECTOR AND OTHERS - 22025:MPHC - IND:21197 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether the petitioner's services qualify as 'export of service' under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act or as 'intermediary services' under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay GST on the services rendered to foreign universities. Whether the show-cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act is maintainable and whether a writ petition challenging such notice is maintainable. Whether the adjudicating authority (Deputy/Assistant Commissioner) is competent to adjudicate the show-cause notice issued by a superior investigating authority (Joint Director, DGGSTI). Whether findings recorded by the investigating authority in the show-cause notice are binding on the adjudicating authority. Whether the place of supply provisions under Section 8(2) of the IGST Act apply to the petitioner's services and affect the taxability. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the matter adjudicated by an officer of higher rank (Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner). 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Classification of Services - Export of Service vs. Intermediary Services Relevant legal framework and precedents: The IGST Act defines 'export of service' under Section 2(6) and 'intermediary services' under Section 2(13). The place of supply rules under Section 8(2) are also relevant to determine whether the supply is intra-state or inter-state. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner claims its services are export of services, exempt from GST, as services are rendered to foreign universities. The respondents contend that the petitioner acts as an agent/intermediary for foreign universities, rendering intermediary services taxable within India. Key evidence and findings: The investigating authority conducted detailed enquiry, recorded statements, and examined documents. The show-cause notice records findings that the petitioner acts as an agent and provides intermediary services with place of supply in India. Application of law to facts: The Court notes the show-cause notice holds the petitioner's services as intermediary services with place of supply in India, thus not qualifying as export of service. The petitioner's contention that services are export of service is rejected by the investigating authority. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's argument that services are export of service and not intermediary services is considered but the Court defers final adjudication to the adjudicating authority. Conclusions: The classification issue is a disputed factual and legal question to be decided by the adjudicating authority; the Court does not interfere at the notice stage. Issue 2: Liability to Pay GST on Services Rendered Relevant legal framework and precedents: GST liability arises based on classification of services and place of supply rules under CGST and IGST Acts. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner asserts it has discharged GST on consideration received from students and denies liability on services rendered to foreign universities. The respondents maintain that if services are intermediary services with place of supply in India, GST is payable. Key evidence and findings: The show-cause notice alleges non-payment of GST on intermediary services. The petitioner has submitted detailed replies denying intermediary status. Application of law to facts: The Court finds that the question of GST liability depends on the classification and place of supply, which is to be adjudicated. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's denial of liability is noted but the Court refrains from deciding the issue at the writ petition stage. Conclusions: GST liability is a matter for adjudication; the Court does not grant relief against the show-cause notice. Issue 3: Maintainability of Writ Petition Challenging Show-Cause Notice under Section 74 CGST Act Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court relies on binding precedents establishing that writ petitions against show-cause notices are ordinarily not maintainable unless the notice is without jurisdiction or issued with mala fide intent. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner challenges the maintainability of the enquiry under Section 74 and the issuance of the show-cause notice. The Court refers to Apex Court precedents holding that writ petitions challenging show-cause notices are maintainable only in exceptional cases. Key evidence and findings: The show-cause notice was issued after detailed enquiry and recording of statements, indicating proper application of mind. Application of law to facts: There is no allegation or indication that the notice was issued without jurisdiction or mala fide. The petitioner's apprehension about adjudication is insufficient to warrant writ relief. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner relies on precedents permitting writs against premeditated notices; the respondents rely on precedents denying writs against show-cause notices. Conclusions: The writ petition challenging the show-cause notice is not maintainable; the petitioner must face adjudication. Issue 4: Competency of Adjudicating Authority and Hierarchy of Officers Relevant legal framework and precedents: Circular No.31/05/2018 - GST dated 09.02.2018 prescribes that show-cause notices issued by DGGSTI are to be adjudicated by Central Tax Officers of the Executive Commissionerate where the noticee is registered. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner objects that the adjudicating authority (Deputy/Assistant Commissioner) is subordinate to the investigating authority (Joint Director, DGGSTI) who issued the notice, thus prejudicing the adjudication. Key evidence and findings: The respondents produce the Circular clarifying the division of functions between investigative and adjudicating authorities. The respondents also offer to have the matter adjudicated by officers of higher rank (Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner) if so directed. Application of law to facts: The Court holds that the investigating authority and adjudicating authority are distinct; findings of the former are not binding on the latter. The adjudicating authority must independently adjudicate the matter. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's apprehension of bias due to hierarchical subordination is addressed by the respondents' willingness to assign the matter to higher-ranked officers. Conclusions: The adjudicating authority is competent to decide the matter; petitioner's apprehension is addressed by procedural safeguards. Issue 5: Binding Nature of Findings Recorded in Show-Cause Notice by Investigating Authority Relevant legal framework and precedents: It is settled law that findings recorded in a show-cause notice or during investigation are prima facie and not binding on the adjudicating authority. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasizes that the adjudicating authority must independently evaluate evidence and arguments without being influenced by the investigating authority's findings. Key evidence and findings: The show-cause notice contains detailed findings, but the respondents clarify these are to demonstrate proper application of mind before issuance of notice. Application of law to facts: The petitioner's apprehension that findings may prejudice adjudication is unfounded as the adjudicating authority is not bound by such findings. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's concerns are noted but the Court relies on settled principles that investigation findings do not bind adjudication. Conclusions: Findings in show-cause notice are not binding; adjudication to be conducted afresh. Issue 6: Applicability of Place of Supply Provisions and Impact on Taxability Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 8(2) of the IGST Act provides rules for determining place of supply in case of intermediary services. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner argues that place of supply is in Indore, making the supply intra-state and not subject to IGST. Respondents argue the services are intermediary services with place of supply in India, attracting GST. Key evidence and findings: The show-cause notice holds the place of supply in India, rejecting export of service classification. Application of law to facts: The Court defers final determination of place of supply and tax implications to adjudication. Treatment of competing arguments: Both parties' contentions are recorded; no final finding is made at this stage. Conclusions: Place of supply and taxability to be decided by adjudicating authority. Issue 7: Entitlement to Adjudication by Higher-Ranked Officer Relevant legal framework and precedents: Circular dated 09.02.2018 allows for adjudication by officers of Deputy/Assistant Commissioner rank, with possibility of higher-ranked officers adjudicating upon request or court direction. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner requests adjudication by Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner due to perceived bias. Key evidence and findings: Respondents agree to issue corrigendum for adjudication by higher-ranked officer if petitioner makes a written request. Application of law to facts: The Court directs that petitioner's request be considered and corrigendum issued accordingly. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court balances petitioner's apprehension with administrative convenience and procedural fairness. Conclusions: Petitioner may seek adjudication by higher-ranked officer; respondents to comply if requested.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
