TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tours 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"] and Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [in short, "DGST Tax"]? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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 letter in this behalf was issued by the petitioner no. 1 on 06.07.2017. 15. The then NDMC responded to this communication via letter dated 21.08.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 petitioners appear to have paid CGST at the rate of 9% and likewise have paid DGST at the rate of 9%, pursuant to notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and notification o. [sic... no.] 11/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so 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 Ors. [although in a context of service tax], into the account while framing the affidavit. 28. List the matter on 01.11.2023. 29. Respondent [sic...Respondents] No. 4 and 6 will furnish a copy of the said affidavit to the counsel for the petitioners and Mr Sanjeev S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. It is in this context that we directed respondents no. 4 to 6 to file their respective affidavits. The affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 adverts to the following: (i) First, the services provided by the petitioners are not 'pure services', and therefore, the petitioners are not exemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. As such, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of." 9. Mr Sanjeev Sagar, who appears on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3/MCD, states that the pe....