Amex Services And Anr. vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Asansol Charge And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the refixation of the classification of services provided by the petitioners is a question of fact. Such factual determinations must be decided based on the evidence and documents presented. The Court found that an alternative remedy exists for the petitioners to present their grievances before the appropriate forum. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for redressal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the GST classification or the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, as it deemed the matter to be factual and having an alternative appellate remedy.
Facts
The petitioners, Amex Services & Anr., challenged an order dated July 16, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Asansol Charge. The petitioners contended that the assessing officer incorrectly charged them GST at 18% for Goods Transport Agency Services, which they claim falls under heading 9965. They argued that the officer exceeded his jurisdiction, citing Section 61 of the GST Act and Instruction no. 2 of 2022 GST. The respondents, representing the State, objected, stating the petitioners had short-paid their liability and that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act, providing an alternative remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Asansol Charge, had the jurisdiction to determine the classification of services provided by the petitioners, specifically concerning Goods Transport Agency Services under heading 9965, contrary to the petitioners' assertion of an 18% GST charge. Contentions: Petitioner: The assessing officer incorrectly charged GST at 18% and outreached his jurisdiction in determining the classification of services. They relied on Section 61 of the GST Act and Instruction no. 2 of 2022 GST to support their claim that the officer exceeded his authority. Revenue/State: The petitioners short-paid their tax liability as determined by the officer. The impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act, providing an alternative remedy for the petitioners to address their grievances.
Sections Cited
Section 61, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
09 jks 13.12.2024 WPA 28448 of 2024 Amex Services & Anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Asansol Charge & Ors. Mr. Souradeep Majumdar … … for the petitioners Mr. Anirban Ray Mr. Md. T. M. Siddiqui Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal Mr. Debraj Sahu … … for the respondents Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners challenged an order dated 16th July, 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Asansol Charge, Asansol herein the respondent no.
According to the petitioners the assessing officer has incorrectly charged the petitioners with GST @ 18 per cent, though the petitioners falls under the heading 9965 i.e., Goods Transport Agency Service. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies on Section 61 of the GST Act and Instruction no.2 of 2022 GST to uncover that the concerned officer has outreached his jurisdiction to come to such conclusion. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently objects to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have short paid the liability as ascertained by the concerned officer. The petitioners
were given appropriate opportunity of hear
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 Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.