Mil Vehicles And Technologies Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner GST Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, MIL Vehicles and Technologies Private Limited, challenged an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner argued that the Adjudicating Authority misapplied a notification dated 02.06.2021. The petitioner contended that the authority incorrectly held that services were provided overseas through M/s James Fisher Defence Ltd (UK) while simultaneously finding that these services were rendered to the Indian Navy for Indian Vessels. The petitioner asserted that if services were for the Indian Navy, no GST liability would arise, or it would be borne by the Indian Navy, rendering the order erroneous. The petitioner also noted the recurring nature of the liability over the service period. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the petitioner's failure to exhaust the alternative remedy of appeal.

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner regarding the misapplication of the notification and the GST liability. Faced with the respondent's preliminary objection that the petitioner had not availed of the alternative remedy of appeal, the petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Court granted this request, dismissing the petition as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to request the Appellate Authority for expeditious, out-of-turn consideration of the appeal, taking into account the facts and circumstances. No specific finding was made on the merits of the GST liability or the interpretation of the notification.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in its application of Notification dated 02.06.2021 concerning the provision of services by the petitioner to the Indian Navy for Indian Vessels, and whether such services attract GST liability? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of the said notification and the nature of services provided). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Adjudicating Authority's findings were contradictory. If services were provided to the Indian Navy for Indian Vessels, no GST liability should arise. Alternatively, if any liability existed, it should have been passed on to the Indian Navy. The petitioner also highlighted that the services were of a recurring nature over a period of time. Revenue's arguments: The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had not availed of the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority.