M/S Gopalan Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “(i) Quashing the impugned order passed on 01.03.2024 and issued on 06.03.2024 bearing OiO No. 43/2023- 24 and DIN No. 2024035700000000E8CA passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax periods April 2018 to March 2019 (Annexure 'A'); (ii) Declaring that since the charges collected by the Petitioner from its customers and lessees towards supply of electricity and water by third-party suppliers are at actuals when compared with the consolidated amounts charged on it by the said third-party suppliers, it is deemed to be acting in the capacity of a pure agent in terms of Para 3.3 of the Circular No.206/08/2023-GST dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure B) issued by the 6th Respondent through the 5th Respondent, and that the said supplies by third-party suppliers, along with the Petitioner's supply of renting of immovable property, thus do not constitute a composite supply in terms of Section 8 of the GST Acts effected by the Petitioner and, hence, the said amounts collected by it are not liable to tax under the provisions of the CGST and KGST Acts, 2017; and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47369 (iii) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity.”
Heard learned counsel for both parties and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the Circular No.206/08/2023-GST dated 31.10.2023 at Annexure-B issued by the respondents in order to point out that Clause No.3.2 and 3.3 and of the said Circular having not been considered in their proper perspective by respondent No.1, while passing the impugned order and as such, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that while dealing with the said contention, will indicate that the petitioner had put forth several contentions as regards the said Circular and applicability of Clause 3.3 to the petitioner herein. The HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47369 said contention has not been considered by respondent No.1 in its proper perspective, has also not considered the various other contentions urged by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, the matter be remitted back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order Annexure-A dated 01/06.03.2024 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind Clause-3.3 of the said Circular dated 31.10.2023 and in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit pleadings, documents etc., before respondent No.1, who shall consider the same and provide sufficient HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47369 opportunity and proceed further, in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.