TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 97 for advance ruling: (b) on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the Appellant. 3. In terms of Section 103 (2) of the Act, this advance ruling shall be binding unless the law, facts or circumstances supporting the said Advance Ruling have changed. 4. In terms of Section 104 (1) of the Act, where the Appellate Authority finds that advance ruling pronounced by it under sub-section (1) of Section 101 has been obtained by the Appellant by fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, it may, by order, declare such ruling to be void ab-initio and there upon all the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall apply to the Appellant as if such advance ruling has never been made. Order under Section 101 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 / Haryana Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 1. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Subway Systems India Private Limited (Now Eversub India Pvt. Ltd.,) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') under Section 100 (1) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Haryana Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LA") dated 18.11.2019 entered into between Subway IP LLC, USA, Subway Internal B.V., Netherlands and the Appellant. The relevant extracts of the TLA are reproduced below: "WHEREAS the parties wish to grant SSIPL the right to use the Trademarks in India under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. (...) 1. GRANT OF LICENSE SIP, through a series of license agreements described above, has granted SSIPL a non-exclusive right to use and sub-license others to use the System, the System IP and the Trademarks in India and the right to use the System, the System IP and the Trademarks for the purpose of entering into franchise agreements with qualified individuals and certain approved entities so they may establish and operate SUBWAY restaurants in India." 1.6 The TLA makes it clear that only a limited license and right to use the System and Trademarks, and to sub-license the said System and Trademarks had been granted to the Appellant, and the substantive rights in the System and Trademarks had not been transferred and remained with the foreign entities. The relevant extracts of the TLA in this regard are reproduced below: "3. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urants. However, the Appellant ensures minimum quality and safety standards to ensure similar service offerings in all SUBWAY restaurants. 1.11 As a consideration of granting license to the franchise for the light to use the system, the Appellant Inter alia charges royalty calculated at a specified percentage of the gross sales made from the restaurants operated by the Franchisee. In the above referred agreement, royalty has been stated to be payable by the franchisee on a period basis, at the rate of 8% of gross sales. Classification of services and applicable GST rate SERVICE CODE ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT; 1.12 The Appellant classified the licensing services provided by it pursuant to the Franchisee Agreement under service code 997336 based on Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017. 1.13 The services such as training, assistance and consultation provided by the appellant to the franchisee are merely ancillary to the principal services of providing a license to use the System. Since, without such license the franchisee would not be entitled for these ancillary services, accordingly considering that these ancillary services are naturally bundl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) (i) Temporary or permanent transfer or permitting the use or enjoyment of Intellectual Property (IP) right in respect of goods other than Information Technology Software 6 - Thus, the combined GST rate for the aforesaid service codes was at 12% for intra-state supply of services. COMPETING SERVICE CODE 1.16 The Appellant is conscious that "Trademarks and Franchises" are covered underservice code 998396. However service code 998396 does not cover the licensing services provided by It. The relevant extract of the scheme for the said code is reproduced below: Chapter, Section, Heading or Group Service code (Tariff) Service Description Chapter 99 All Services Section 8 Business and Production Service Heading 9983 Other Professional, Technical and Business Services Group 99839 Other Professional, Technical and Business Services 998396 Trademarks and Franchises 1.17 As per Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (the aforesaid service code carries a CST rate of 9%. The relevant extract of the Notification Is provided below: Chapter, Section or Heading ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses, are covered under service code 998396. Re: Service Codes 997336/997339 1.24 The Scheme of Classification of Services adopted for the purposes of Indian GST Laws a modified version of the United Nations Central Product Classification (UNCPC) and the explanatory Notes for the said scheme are based on the Explanatory Notes to the UNCPC (refer Para 1-2 of the preface of the Explanatory Notes). The relevant extracts of the Explanatory Notes are reproduced below: Explanatory Note to Group. 99733 "This group includes permitting, granting or otherwise authorizing the use of intellectual property products and similar products." Note: This covers rights to exploit these products, such as licensing to third parties; reproducing and publishing software, books, etc.; using patented designs in production processes to produce new goods and so on. Limited end user licences, which are sold as part of a product (e.g., packaged software, books) are not included here. Explanatory Note to Group 99736 "This service code includes licensing services for the right to use trademarks and to operate franchises". Explanatory Note to Group 99739 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1.29 By way of the Franchise Agreement, the Appellant grants to the franchisees the license to use/permissive use of the System (including the brand name, trademarks, proprietary and confidential information) for setting up and operating a SUBWAY restaurant franchise. The said license or permission is a very limited right and subject to various conditions and restrictions. Re: Service Code 998396 1.30 The relevant extract of the explanatory Notes are reproduced below: Explanatory Notes to Service Code 998396 "This service code includes original trademarks and franchises, i.e. the legally registered ownership of a certain brand name. Note: These products are produced on own account with the intent of deriving benefits from allowing others to use these trademarks or franchises. This service code does not include: -licensing services for the right to use trademarks and franchises, - 99733 1.31 At the outset Appellant submits that the explanatory Note to Service Code 998396 expressly states that licensing services are not included within the said code. Since the services provided by the Appellant to the franchisees constitute a license or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... divested of the right or goods and the same should be vested in the transferee, to the exclusion of all others; c) Effective or general control; over the goods must pass to the transferee. Effective or general control does not always mean physical control and even if the manner, method, modalities and the time of the use of goods is decided by the transferee, it would be under the effective or general control over the goods. d) The approvals, concessions, licenses and permits in relation to the goods would also be available to the transferee, even if such licenses or permits are in the name of the transferor of the goods; and e) The transferee should have a legal right to use the goods and consequently all legal consequences should fail upon the transferee. 1.36 The Appellant states that since the Franchise Agreement entered into by it do not possess the aforesaid features; the services provided do not constitute a "transfer of right to use goods? This has been demonstrated in detail in the following section by referring to specific clauses in the enclosed agreement. Re: License to USE/Permissive use 1.37 At the outset, the Appellant states that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons, terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement. The Franchisee is granted a limited non-exclusive sub license to use the SUBWAY trademark in connection with the operation of the restaurant [clause-3] b) The franchisee is obliged to use or display trademarks on materials and stationary only as permitted by the Appellant. The franchisee is required to specify at a prominent place in the restaurant that it is an independent franchised operator of the restaurant and a licensed user of the SUBWAY trademarks. [clause 5(m)] c) The Appellant has exclusive and unrestricted right to sell food products and beverages under the SUBWAY trademark at any location and the Franchise would not have any right to impose any conditions in this regard. [clause 11(m)] d) The term of the Franchise Agreement has been specified to be twenty years with provisions for further renewal (clause-7] e) The franchise has not been conferred any territorial rights and the appellant possesses unlimited rights to compete with the franchisee or license others to do so (clause-K] f) Prior to the opening the restaurant, the franchise owner must complete a mandatory trainin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd is subject to several restrictions and conditions required to be met by the franchisee. 1.43 The franchisee required to use the SUBWAY trademark only as directed by the appellant and is not authorized to sub license the same. The Appellant is authorized to terminate the agreement in case of the franchisee's failure to comply with the conditions. Upon termination the franchisees rights and privileges would return to the Appellant and the appearance of the restaurant must be changed so that it can no longer be identified as a SUBWAY restaurant. 1.44 The Franchise neither obtains general or effective control over the system nor does it acquire any rights in the System to the exclusion of the Appellant or other Licensors. The license In the System is not territorial in nature and the Appellant has unlimited rights to compete with the franchisee. The franchisee does not possess any property rights in the SYSTEM and is only conferred with a limited, representational right. 1.45 Based on the above it can be concluded that the Franchisee Agreement is nothing but a licensing agreement having the effect of granting permissive use of the System for operating a SUBWAY restaurant fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the decision of Gujarat AAR in RE; M/s Tea Post Pvt. Ltd., 2001 (1) TMI 424-AAR I not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case d) Grant a personal hearing through video conferencing mode in view of COVID pandemic; and e) Pass any such further or other order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case. 5. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: A. SEVERAL SUBMISSIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY AAR; THE RULING HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT ANY INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND AND THIS RENDERS THE ORDER A NON-SPEAKING ORDER 5.1 It is submitted that the Impugned Ruling dated 08.12.2021 passed by the Hon'ble AAR is a non-speaking order and has hence been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5.2 It is submitted that the Written Submissions filed by the Appellant were Ignored by the AAR, while some of the submissions are reproduced in the Ruling, there is no finding given to that effect in the impugned order. To this extent, the Impugned order is violating of natural justice being non-speaking and is liable to he set aside on this ground alone. 5.3 The AAR has conveniently ignored critical terms of the Franchise Agreemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions on relevant facts. This is virtually the Life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of Justice. i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j) Insistence on reason Is a requirement for both Judicial accountability and transparency. k) If a Judge or quasi-Judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then It is impossible to know whether the person deciding Is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretense of reasons or rubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated with valid decision-making process. m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism... (I) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretense of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.... (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role In setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process." 5.7 It has been clearly established in the above decisions that a quasi-judicial order should contain proper reasons and the absence of the same is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The action of the Hon'ble AAR in making such classification of the Appellant without adducing any reason/ relying upon any provisions for the same is grossly in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5.8 Hence, it is submitted in this regard that impugned ruling is non-speaking and arbitr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e passed without hearing the Appellant, in terms of Section 98 (4) of the CGST Act on 08.12.2021 and was communicated vide email dated 13.12.2021, days after due date of passing the order was over. 5.13 In support of adherence of the principles of natural justice in affording the opportunity of personal hearing, the Appellant relies on the following judgments: (1) Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [1981(1) SCC 664]; (2) JT (India) Exports vs. UOI [2002 (144) ELT 288 (Del)]; (3) Alfred Berg & Co.(1)(P) Ltd. vs. Cestat, Chennai [2011 (273) ELT 373 (Mad)]; (4) Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association vs. Designated Authority [2011 (263) ELT 481(SC)]; (5) Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. UOI [2013 (292) ELT 44 (Bom)] (6) Tinplate Co. of India Ltd. vs. UOI (2013 (288) ELT 59 (Jhar)); (7) Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra [2013 (295) ELT 358 (SC)); (8) Reema Gases (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner [2014 (309) ELT A50 (Cap]; (9) Kantilal B. Mobile vs. UOI [2014 (306) ELT 51 (Bom); (10) Baboo Ram Mari Chand vs. UOI [2014 (304) ELT 371 (Guj)]; (11) Logic Transware India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an application, the Authority shall cause a copy thereof to be forwarded to the concerned officer and, if necessary, call upon him to, furnish the relevant records: Provided that where any records have been called for by the Authority in any case, such records shall, as soon as possible, be returned to the said concerned officer. (2) The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for and after hearing the applicant or his authorized representative and the concerned officer or his authorized representative, by order, either admit or reject the application: Provided that the Authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of art applicant under any of the provisions of this Act: Provided further that no application shall be rejected under this subsection unless an opportunity, of hearing has been given to the applicant: Provided also that where the application is rejected, the reasons for such rejection shall be specified in the order. (3) A copy of every order made under sub-section (2) shall be sent to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the aforesaid section is mandatory in nature which should be duly adhered by the ARA. 5.21 It is further submitted that the above explained approach of the AAR is against a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it is to be done in that manner and in no other manner [Refer: Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 pc 253 Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322, State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 and Chandra Kishore Jha Mahavir Prasad, [1999] 7 JT 256 (SC)] 5.22 The AAR has in grave non-compliance of the procedure laid down in section 96, it is submitted that firstly, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the Appellant to present its case and facts; the Impugned Ruling was received beyond the period on 90 days i.e. on 13.12.2021; till date the AAR has failed to upload the Impugned Ruling on GST Portal; and the Impugned Ruling has been passed neglecting the submissions of the Appellant and is in non-speaking in nature. GROSS FAILURE OF THE MACHINERY OF ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY IS ATTRIBUTED TO ABSENCE OF A JUDICIAL MEMBER: 5.23 In absence of a judicial mem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....396 5.29 It is well settled that intellectual property rights are considered as "goods" for the purpose of tax legislations. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikas Sales Corporation vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (19961 102 STC 106 (SC) and Tata Consultancy Services vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2004] 137 STC 620 (SC). 5.30 However, it is equally well settled that temporary transfer or permitting the use of intellectual property rights is a supply of "services". In the context of GST laws, reference in this regard is made to Schedule II of the CGST Act, which deems the following transactions to be supply of services: (a) Any transfer of right in goods without the transfer of title thereof [pare 1(b)); (b) Temporary transfer or permitting the use or enjoyment of any intellectual property right [pare 5(c)]; (c)Transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration (pare 5(1)). 5.31 It is the case of the Appellant that: • transaction (b) above i.e. permitting the use or enjoyment of intellect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in relation to Chapter XII (other than section 107), a registered trade mark or a mark used in relation to goods or services for the purpose of Indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods or services, as the case may be, and some person having the right as proprietor to use the mark; and in relation to other provisions of this Act, a mark used or proposed to be used in relation to goods or services for the purpose of indicating or so to Indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods or services, as the case may be, and some person having the right, either as proprietor or by way of permitted user, to use the mark whether with or without any indication of the identity of that person, and Includes certification trade mark or collective mark." 5.34 The mark SUBWAY and other mark have been duly registered in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Accordingly, these marks fall within the meaning of the term "Trademark" as referred in the scheme of classification of services for the purpose of Indian GST Law. Sample certificates evidencing registration of the mark name SUBWAY in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnational RV., Netherlands and Subway IP LLC, USA have granted the Appellant only the right to license or sublicense the System and the 'SUBWAY"' trademark to franchisees in the territory. The Appellant has not been authorised to transfer the right to use the System and the 'SUBWAY' trademark to franchisees as per the MLA or TLA. It Is well-settled that a person cannot transfer a better title than he himself has (as enshrined in the Latin maxim nemodat quod non habet). Accordingly, the question of the Appellant transferring such right to use to franchisees does not arise. Distinction between "transfer of right to use goods" and 'license to use/ permissive use" Re: Transfer of right to use goods 5.42 The meaning and scope of the expression "transfer of right to use goods" has been expounded in several landmark Judgments such as 20th Century Finance Corporation Limited v State of Maharashtra, (2000) 6 SCC 12; Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer, (1990) 77 STC 182; Aggarwal Brothers v State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 182; State of Andhra Pradesh v Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, (2002) 3 SCC 314; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v Union of India, 2006 (2) 5TR 161....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....At the end of the period for which the license is granted, the rights or goods must be returned to the licensor; c) The licensor must have the right to terminate and repossess and deny further access to that intangible; d) The licensee must not be able to sub-license the permission it obtains under the agreement; and e) The transfer must be on a non-exclusive basis. 5.47 Based on clauses 3, 5(m), 11(m), 5(o), 8(g), 11(b) and several others of the Franchise Agreement, the Appellant submits that since the Franchise Agreements entered into by it possess the aforesaid features, the Services provided constitute a mere license to use/permissive use of goods". This has been demonstrated in detail in the following section by referring to specific clauses in the enclosed agreement. 5.48 In simple terms, the Appellant submits that if Microsoft Corporation, USA were to transfer to Microsoft India the right to use the Windows' operating system source code and develop copies thereof for sale, on an exclusive basis, within the territory of India, the transaction would be regarded as a "transfer of right to use" goods in the hands of Microsoft Corporation, USA. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Procurements of food, equipment, beverages and other products and services should be made in the manner as approved by the Appellant (clause 5(b)(i); i) The Appellant is authorised to verify books, records and electronic data of the franchisee as part of an audit to verify the amount of sales (clause 5(h)]; j) The franchisee is required to use the name and word SUBWAY only as specified oy the Appellant. The franchise owner agrees not to contest the validity or ownership of the SUBWAY trademark. The franchisee acknowledges that it will not acquire any ownership rights in the SUBWAY' trademark (clause 5 (o); k) Upon termination of the Franchise Agreement, the franchisee Is required to change the appearance of the restaurant, stop using the System and return the Operations Manual. The franchisee owner is not allowed to engage directly or indirectly In any sandwich business within 5 kilometers of the location of any SUBWAY restaurant (clause 8(g)]; l) The franchisee's rights and privileges under the Franchise Agreement would return to the Appellant upon the franchisee surrendering, abandoning or suffering revocation if its rights and privileges (cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....correct when he says that the agreement between Subway and its franchisees is not a sale, but is in fact a bare permission to use. It is, therefore, subject only to service tax. In our opinion, the fact that the agreement between Subway and its franchisee is limited to the precise period of time stipulated in the agreement is vital to Subway's case. At the end of the period of the agreement, or before in case there was any breach of its terms, the right of the franchisee to display the mark Subway and its trade dress, and all other permissions would also end...In Subway's case, there are set terms provided by the agreement which have to be followed. A breach of these would result in termination of the agreement. We believe that there is no passage of any kind of control or exclusivity to the franchisees. In fact, this agreement is a classic example of permissive use. It can be nothing else..... 72...The so-called 'system' is controlled by Subway and it is exclusive to Subway. At the end of the franchise term, it cannot be used. Some (though not all) of the ingredients -breads, salad dressings and other 'key' items are to be sourced from Subway or Subway-authorised vendors ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the Judgment dated 17.05.2017 In Writ Petition (C) No. 4453/2013 and Writ Petition (C) No. 3404/2015". 5.57 The relevant extracts of the judgment delivered in McDonalds India (supra) are reproduced below: "46. For a transfer of the right to use goods to be effective, such transfer of right should be one that the transferee can exercise in exclusion of others; which is not the case in the present appeals and petitions, as the franchise agreement only grants a non-exclusive right, retaining the franchisor's right to transfer the composite bunch of services to other parties, apart from it retaining ownership to the same. The ownership in the trade mark, logo, service marks, and brand name is solely vested in Appellant and the Petitioners and has not been transferred; as is clearly manifested in the various clauses of the franchise agreements. The Appellant and the Petitioners grant a non-exclusive license to the franchisees, which can be revoked upon non-compliance of the terms and conditions as stipulated in their franchise arrangement. clearly, this does not amount to a transfer of the right to use goods. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Supreme Court in Moorco (India)Ltd., Madras v. Collector of Customs, Madras, 1994 (74) ELT 5 (S.C.) and Speedway Rubber Co. v. Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh and Ors, 2002 (143) ELT 8(S.C.). 5.61 Further, a commodity cannot be classified in a residuary entry, in the presence of a specific entry. A residuary entry can be taken refuge of only in the absence of a specific entry; that is to say, the latter will always prevail over the former. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Alis Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd, 2012 (3) TMI 40-SC 5.62 Moreover, pare 3 of the preface to the Explanatory Notes states that where a service is capable of differential treatment for any purpose based on Its description, the most specific description shall be preferred over a more general description. 5.63 Relying on the above, the Appellant submits that the services provided by it are correctly classifiable under service codes 997336 (Entry 1) / 997339 (Entry 2), being specific entries, instead of service code 998396 (Entry 3), which is a general / residuary' entry. Contrary decision of the Gujarat Advance R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: The Gujarat AAR has failed to consider that service code 997336 (Entry 1) includes the in licensing services context of franchisees and not licensing services simpliciter. 1. Licensing refers to an arrangement between licensor and licensee where latter party would acquire the right to use products and goods where the ownership remains with the licensor. However, Franchising refers to an arrangement between franchiser and franchisee where the latter will enjoy the ownership of a business on behalf of the franchiser in lieu of a fee where the processes are closely controlled by franchisor. Therefore, it is generally seen that licensing is for products and goods whereas the franchising model is used more in service providing industry. i) Ownership enjoyed by franchisee is not "on behalf of franchisor. Franchisees can be operated even without a profit-sharing arrangement i.e. without sharing ownership (for example, the Appellant's present case); ii) Processes can be closely controlled in a licensing arrangement also (for example, the Appellant's present case where the Franchisees are expected to meet minimum quality end safety standards); iii) Franchising also u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the customers. i) Licensing agreement may provide for a periodic license fee es opposed to one-time fee. Licensor may also agree to provide technical support of assistance to the license (for example, the Appellant's present case), ii) The features of franchisee enumerated here are also equally applicable for licensing arrangements in the context of franchises. 8. In franchising, complete training and support are provided by the franchisor to franchisee which is absent in licensing. Licensor may also agree to provide complete training and support to the licensee (for example, the Appellant's present case). 9. The licensor has control on the use of intellectual property by the licensee but has no control over the licensee's business. However, the franchisor exerts considerable control over franchisee's business and process. i) The features of franchisees enumerated here are also equally applicable for licensing arrangements in the context of franchises; ii) Licensor may also exercise control over the licensee's business, by prescribing adherence to minimum quality end safety standards (for example, the Appellant's present case). iii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not have decided in favour of the particular party unless it also decided point B in his favour; but point B was not argued or considered by the court. In such circumstances, although point B was logically involved in the facts and although the case had a specific outcome, the decision is not an authority on point B. Point B is said to pass sub silentio. A good Illustration is Gerard v. Worth of Paris, Ltd There, a discharged employee of a company, who had obtained damages against the company for wrongful dismissal, applied for a garnishee order on a bank account standing in the name of the liquidator of the company. The only point argued was on the question of the priority of the claimant's debt, and, on this argument being heard, the Court of Appeal granted the order. No consideration was given to the question whether a garnishee order could properly be made on an account standing in the name of the liquidator. When, therefore, this very point was argued in a subsequent case before the Court of Appeal (I), the court held itself not bound by its previous decision. Sir Wilfrid Greene, MR., said that he could not help thinking that the point now raised had been delibera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AARis binding only on the parties involved therein. 5.73 Till date of filing of the present appeal, copy of the order was not uploaded in the GST portal despite reminders from the Appellant. The Petitioner was not furnished with any certified copy of the Order passed by the Ld. Advance Ruling Authority. 5.74 It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court (in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020) vide order dated 10.01.2022 has ordered that the period from 15.03.2021 till 28.02.2022 will be excluded from the period of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or specific laws in respect of all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. This judgment applies to all litigants in the country Fling appeals in all quasi-judicial proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under a general law of limitation or under any special law (both Central and/or State) due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. 6. Record of Personal Hearing 6.1 Personal Hearing was held in the light of directions of Hon'ble High Court. 6.1.1 As per the records available, an enquiry was initiated by the DGGI-Gurugram Unit against the Appellant and DRC-01A bearing CBIC DIN 202307ADGEE00....