Philips Carbon Black Limited vs. State Of Kerala
Held
The Kerala High Court held that as per Section 10(1)(b) of the IGST Act, the place of supply for goods sent directly to a job worker on the principal's instruction is the principal's business premises (Tamil Nadu). Therefore, the supply was inter-state, correctly attracting IGST. The Court found the proceedings initiated under Section 129 to be without jurisdiction, as the authorities erroneously considered the place of delivery as the place of supply.
Facts
Philips Carbon Black Limited transported goods from Cochin, Kerala, to a job worker in Kannur, Kerala, as per instructions from its buyer/principal located in Arakonam, Tamil Nadu. The consignment was accompanied by an invoice charging IGST, showing the buyer in Tamil Nadu and the job worker in Kerala as the consignee. The goods were intercepted in Kerala, and authorities issued a detention order and notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST Act, alleging that CGST and SGST should have been charged as the delivery was within Kerala.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the supply of goods directly to a job worker in the same state as the supplier, but on instructions from a principal in another state, constitutes an inter-state supply attracting IGST or an intra-state supply attracting CGST/SGST. Another issue was the validity of proceedings initiated under Section 129 based on an incorrect determination of the place of supply.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3) CGST Act, Section 143 CGST Act, Section 168 CGST Act, Section 7 IGST Act, Section 10(1)(b) IGST Act, Section 20(xxii) IGST Act, Rule 45 CGST Rules, Rule 46(o) CGST Rules, Rule 138(1) CGST Rules
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 19058 OF 2018 PETITIONER: PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LIMITED COCHIN UNIT, KARIMUGAL, BRAHMAPURAM P.O., KOCHI-682303, REPRESENTED BY ITS SR. MANAGER-HR & ADMIN- MR.NANDAGOPAL G. BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE) SQUAD NO.VI, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, NIRMAL ARCADE, ERANHIPLAM, KOZHIKODE- 673006. 3 ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO.VI, KOZHIKODE, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KERALA- 673006. ADV.RESHMITHA RAMACHANDRAN -GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.19058 of 2018 2 “C.R” JUDGMENT The petitioner, a dealer under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has filed the present writ petition
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.