TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rties, we had etched out the broad contours of the case. For convenience, the relevant parts of the order dated 14.08.2023 are set forth: "1. This writ petition was filed in the era when there were three Municipal Corporations in Delhi, i.e., North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC), and South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC). 2. As of now a unified Municipal Corporation, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) is in place. 3. The issue which arises for consideration is: whether MCD should be called upon to reimburse the Goods and Services Tax [in short, "GST"] paid by the petitioners under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [in short, "CGST Tax"] an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11. We may also note that after the notification dated 28.06.2017, another notification dated 25.01.2018 was issued, which adverted to the fact that even where service of composite nature was rendered, the rate of tax would be nil, provided that the value of goods supplied was not more than 25% of the total invoice value. 12. As indicated above, it is the petitioners' case that the goods supplied by them were ordinarily more than 25% of the invoice value and wherever the value of goods supplied fell below that percentage, GST was not paid and hence is not claimed. 13. As regards this issue, i.e., reimbursement of GST by MCD, the petitioner and MCD have exchanged correspondence since 2017. 14. The first lett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ghts in a Municipal area to an agency which involves apart from maintenance, replacement of defunct lights and other spares. In this case, the scope of the service involves maintenance work and supply of goods, which falls under the works contract services. The exemption is provided to services involves only supply of services and not for works contract services." [Emphasis is ours] 19. Therefore, the moot question which arises is: whether the petitioner ought to be reimbursed by the MCD [sic...for] the service tax [sic...goods and service tax] which they have paid, at the rate prevalent during the relevant period. 20. We may note that during the period commencing from 01.07.2017 and up until 20.09.2017, the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 up until today? (ii) Whether the stand of the MCD that since, according to it, the petitioners were rendering "pure service", the GST was payable by them at "nil" rate in terms of notification dated 28.06.2017 is correct or not? 26. We may also note that the petitioners have relied upon the order of the Orrisa Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for GST dated 05.03.2019, which takes the position that for maintenance of street lights, GST is payable. 27. Respondent [sic...Respondents] 4 to 6 will also take this aspect as well as the judgment of [sic...the] coordinate bench of this Court rendered on 24.08.2022 in WP(c) No. 11127/2009, titled BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the GST framework, for the aforementioned periods, are also adverted to in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the order dated 14.08.2023. 2.3 Similarly, in paragraph 22 of the order dated 14.08.2023, we noted that, presently, the petitioners are paying CGST and DGST at the rate of 6% each. 3. Thus, what is not in dispute is that the petitioners have been paying both CGST and DGST from 01.04.2017, at the rates indicated hereinabove, up until today. 4. The only defence offered by respondents no. 1 to 3/MCD is that it was not obliged to reimburse the GST paid by the petitioners as they had rendered 'pure services' as against composite service and therefore, were taxable at 'nil' rate, as per the terms of the Notification dated 28.06.2017. 5.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) Since service tax has been paid by the petitioners, respondent no. 1/MCD, being the recipient of the service, will have to bear the burden and consequently reimburse the same." 8. It is also relevant to note that the MCD had preferred a Special Leave Petition [i.e., Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 42299/2022] against the said judgment, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court, on merits, via order dated 30.01.2023. The observations made by the Supreme Court are set forth hereafter: "Delay condoned. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, and the reasoning given on the exemption notification, we see no reas....