S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
13(8)(b)
of IGST
Act, 2017

provisions relating
to Place of Supply
of services by an
intermediary

Dharmendra M. Jani
v. UOI [2023] 151
taxmann.com 91
(Bombay

The High Court following its earlier judgement held that the provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are legal, valid
and constitutional, provided that the provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) are confined in their operation to the provisions of
IGST Act only and the same cannot be made applicable for levy of tax on services under the CGST and MGST Acts.
Case Referred- Dharmendra M. Jani v. Union of India [2023] 149 taxmann.com 317/ 97 GST 630 / 2023 (72) G.S.T.L 448 (Bom.)

2

Section
2(30) and
Section
15

Whether supply
under two
contracts for
which separate
invoices were
issued by
applicant to his
recipient, under a
single contract
agreement are
independent from
each other or part
of composite
supply

PES Engineers (P.)
Ltd. [2023] 151
taxmann.com 87
(AAR- TELANGANA)

The petitioner entered into two separate agreements and the title to both the agreements was as follows-
“Whereas the Employer desires to engage the Contractor to design, manufacture, test, deliver, install, complete and commission and
conduct guarantee tests of certain Facilities, viz., Fuel Gas www.taxmann.com 13 Desulphurisation (FGD) System Package for Singareni
TPS, Stage-1 (2 X 600 MW) under Bidding Document No.CW-CM-11017-C-O-M-003 (“the Facilities”) and the Contractor have agreed to
such engagement upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter appearing.”
The scope of First Contract was sale of goods ex-manufacture/exworks and according to the applicant, it was a contract for pure sale of
goods. The scope of work under the Second Contract was “Inland Transportation of the main equipment, inland transit insurance, unloading
at site, storage, erection, civil works, Safety aspects / Compliance to Safety Rules and other services insurance covers other than inland
transit insurance, testing, commission and conducting guarantee tests”. And according to the applicant, the supply under Second Contract
was Works Contract Service. Question before the authority was whether these are two supplies or are they part of composite supply.
The authority held that the scope of works/supply undertaken under individual contracts are entirely independent and specific to that contract
and are not associated with other contract. The supply undertaken under the first contact terminated with making goods available ex-works
and loading them on to the mode of transport. The moment the applicant raised tax invoice for the supply of goods and endorsed the
despatch documents, the title of the goods passed on to M/s SCCL. The supply under the second contact commenced with service of
transportation of the said goods supplied under first contract. Since the transfer of property in the goods supplied under first contract was
not taking place during the execution of the Works Contract under second contract, the value thereof cannot be included in the Works
Contract. Thus, supply/ service under second contract commenced only on completion of all the milestone activities of first contract. Thus,
it was held that it was evident that each Contract was independent and every milestone supply made from the individual contract was, an
independent transaction. It was further held that when both the contracts are viewed as separate contracts, notwithstanding that both were
mentioned in single Conditions of Contract, tax liability on supply of goods, as per First Contract, will arise as specified in Section 12(2)(a)
of CGST Act, 2017 i.e. at the time, which is the date of issue of invoice by the taxpayer or the last date on which he is required, under
section 31, to issue the invoice.
Cases Referred- Commissioner Vs. Essar Projects (India) Ltd., 2014(36) STRJ 153(SC), State of Karnataka Vs. Pro. Lab, 2015 (321)
EIT 366(SC), State of Madras Vs. Gannon Dunkerley & Company (Madras) Ltd., [1958] 9 STC353(SC); C.C.E. & S.T., AHMEDABADIII Versus KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD., 2021 (48) G.S.T.L. 354 (Tri. - Ahmd.)

3

Section
107

Availability of
Alternative
remedy

Thiruchy Royal
Steels v. Deputy
State Tax Officer
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 86
(Madras)

The High Court held that since writ petition involved disputed questions of facts, which could not be gone into in the Writ Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the alternate remedy is available under Section 107 of the GST Act, therefore Writ
Petition stands disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
15

Manufacture and supply
Precast Manholes and Rises
ON e Cement, & Steel (TMT
& Bars) supplied by the
recipient is supply of goods.
The activity does not fall
within the scope of Job Work.
The price to be charged from
the recipient i.e. M/s Larsen
& Toubro Ltd by the applicant
for supply of precast manhole
shall not the be transaction
value in terms of Section
15(1)
The material which are to be
made available free of cost
by the recipient and are not
within the scope of applicant
for supply of precast manhole
shall form part of the
transaction value for the
purpose of levy of ta

Natani Precast [2023]
151 taxmann.com 55
(AAR- RAJASTHAN)

Applicant had received request for quotation for supply of precast Manholes by M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Two basic
ingredients i.e Cement, & Steel (TMT & Bars), used for manufacturing of precast manholes were to be supplied by M/s
Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Authority held that applicant had intention to manufacture and supply Precast Manholes and Rises and manufacturing
process submitted by the applicant itself reflected that the applicant was engaged in manufacturing of goods. Thus, the
instant transaction of supply of Precast Manholes and Rises was of supply of goods and not a supply of services.
Authority further held that since the applicant was involved in the manufacturing of Manholes and Rises and it could not be
termed as any treatment or process on the goods belonging to the recipient i.e. service of job work, even if inputs were
being supplied free of cost and these inputs wholly were being used in manufacturing of resultant goods and termed as
supply of goods not services. The authority further distinguished Circular No. 47/21/2018-GST, dated 8-6-2018 as it
pertained to an act of modification and treatment on a good wherein in the instant case of applicant, new goods were
manufactured from raw materials and not the work done on the goods belongs to recipient.
Authority further observed that since applicant is to manufacture and supply Precast Manholes and Rises as per specific
order from recipient but cement and iron was to be supplied by recipient on free of cost whereas if recipient were not to
supply main ingredients then it would have been borne by applicant. Thus, Free of cost supply of main ingredients from
recipient was nothing but mutual understanding between both parties which do not debar them from the essence of supply
of goods and consideration received under GST. Thus, it was held that by such type of adjustments applicant will receive
the consideration in barter. I.e. one consideration in the shape of price as per agreement and second in the shape of free
issue of essential inputs like cement and steels. Hence price to be charged from recipient i.e. M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd by
the applicant for supply of precast manhole shall not be transaction value in terms of Section 15(1) & 15(2) of the CGST /
RGST Act 2017 & material which are to be made available free of cost by the recipient and are not within the scope of
applicant for supply of precast manhole shall form part of the transaction value for the purpose of levy of tax

2

HSN
9992

Supply of the aircraft type
rating training services to
commercial pilots is not
exempt from levy of GST

CAE Flight Training
(India) (P.) Ltd [2023]
151 taxmann.com 54
(AAR- KARNATAKA)

The supply of the aircraft type rating training services to commercial pilots, in accordance with the training curriculum
approved by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation for obtaining the extension of aircraft type ratings on their existing
licenses, do not result into a qualification as the applicant imparts training and issues only course completion certificate and
thus the impugned services are not covered under SI. No. 66 (a) of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated
28.6.2017 and thus are exigible to GST under the CGST/ KGST Act 2017

3

Section
29 and
Section
30

Since alternative remedy was
available therefore the High
Court relegated the matter to
concerned authority

Syed Wasim Rohman
v. State of Assam
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 53
(Gauhati)

The petitioner approached the High Court for revocation of cancellation of registration. The High Court observed that
Section 30 of Assam GST Act, 2017 provides alternative and efficacious remedy to the petitioner to apply for revocation of
the cancellation of the registration and thus the Court was of the considered opinion that the petitioner be relegated to the
concerned designated authority for availing remedy as prescribed under the provision of section 30(1) of the Assam GST
Act, 2017

S.No

Section

CAse Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
15 and
Rule 32

Activity of Gold Jewellery
being melted into gold lumps,
not eligible to avail the
benefits of Rule 32(5) of
CGST Rules, 2017

White Gold
Bullion (P.) Ltd.
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 45
(AAR -
KARNATAKA)

Authority held that when applicant melts the gold jewellery into gold lumps, the nature of goods changes in as much as the
characteristics of the articles and the classification changes. Since the processing done by the applicant changes the nature of
goods, they are not eligible to avail the benefits of Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules, 2017. The HSN Code for Old Gold Jewellery is 7113
and after melting into gold lumps or irregular shapes of gold the HSN Code is 7108.

2

Section
140

Unadjusted VAT TDS
allowed to be carried forward
to the GST regime

P & C Projects
(P.) Ltd. v.
Assistant
Commissioner of
(ST)(FAC) [2023]
151 axmann.com
46 (Madras)

The High Court not observed that the order was a non-speaking order as no reasons had been given for rejecting the petitioner's
request for carrying forward of the unadjusted VAT TDS to the GST regime that too when the law was well settled by the decision
of the learned Single Judge, which also had attained finality as no Appeal had been filed against the said order as fairly admitted
by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. The impugned order was thus quashed.
Case Referred- M/s. DMR Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Rasipuram, Namakkal
District reported [2021] 125 taxmann.com 252 (Mad.)/[2021] 86 GST 82 (Mad.)

3

Section
129

Transporter can seek release
of the conveyance on deposit
of specified amount under
Section 129(6

Lodha Roadways
v. Deputy State
Tax Officer,
Inspection Cell-4
[2023] 150
taxmann.com
375 (Madras)

The High Court held that Section 129 provides for various situations where release of conveyance and goods may be sought and
Section 129(6) being specific to a transporter, thus enables a transporter to seek release of the conveyance in the circumstances
mentioned therein, being, upon payment of penalty under sub-section (3) or a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh, whichever is less.-

4

Section 5
of IGST
Act, 2017

Refund of IGST paid on
Ocean Freight

Etc Agro
Processing
(India) (P.) Ltd.
v. UOI [2023] 150
taxmann.com
376 (Gujarat)

The High Court held that since Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017- IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 has already been declared
ultravires by Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore amount of Rs. 6,98,00,420/- paid by the petitioner as IGST on ocean freight of goods
imported during July, 2017 to December, 2019 be refunded alongwith the statutory rate of interest.
Case Referred- ADI Enterprises v. UOI being Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No. 10479
of 2019

5

Section
129 and
Section
130

Exercise of powers under
Section 129 and thereafter
switching over to Section 130
and passing order
thereunder without availing
the petitioner the benefits of
release of goods under
Section 129

Rohit Company
v. Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com
379 (Gujarat)

The petitioner contended that when the goods were in transit, the authorities intercepted the goods and confiscated them. In other
words, authorities sought to derive their powers for taking possession of the goods of the petitioner which were in transit under
Section 129 of the Act. It was submitted that the said Section begins with non obstante clause and it is a provision independent of
Section 130. In that context, it was submitted that exercise of powers under Section 129 and thereafter switching over to Section
130 and passing order thereunder without availing the petitioner the benefits of release of the goods under Section 129, could be
said to be without jurisdiction.
The High Court, by way of interim relief, directed that the goods of the petitioner as well as vehicle shall be released upon
satisfaction of conditions and admitted the petition and also directed the same to be listed with Special Civil Application No.8353
of 2022

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Reffered

1

Section
54

Can the Proper
officer call for
documents in
addition to what
have been
prescribed under
Circular No.
125/44/2019 Dated
18th November
2019

SRG Plastic Company v.
Commissioner Delhi
Goods and Services Tax
Trade and Tax Department
[2023] 150 taxmann.com 261
(Delhi

-If an application for refund is accompanied by all relevant documents as prescribed under Rule 89 of
the Rules and Circular No. 125/44/2019 Dated 18th November 2019, the said application cannot be
rejected as incomplete and is required to be processed.
-However, that does not preclude the concerned officer from calling upon the applicant to furnish any
other relevant documents that he considers necessary for processing the application for refund. The
High Court thus held that it was incorrect on the part of petitioner to state that he was not required to
submit the documents as sought for by the Proper Officer.
-Since the petitioner had provided most of the relevant documents as also the fact that if the Appellate
Tribunal was constituted, the petitioner would be entitled to seek an opportunity to furnish the relevant
documents before the Tribunal; thus the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the
matter to the Proper Officer

-

2

Section
16

Demand created
against the
petitioner even
though Tax was
already paid by the
supplier

Gajrar Singh Ranawat v.
Union of India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 260
(Rajasthan)

It was contended by the petitioner that supplier has already paid GST on the supplied items, however,
ignoring the same, order has been passed for return of Input Tax Credit. The Department counsel
also submitted that the matter may be remanded for afresh adjudication after taking into consideration
the fact that the GST on the supplied items has already been paid by the suppliers.
The High Court thereafter observing that the petitioner although initially raised but subsequently has
not pressed for reliefs for declaring the provisions of Section 16(2)(aa), 16(2)(c) of the Act of 2017 and
Rule 36(4) of the Rules of 2017 as unconstitutional quashed and set aside the order and directed the
officer to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

-

3

Section
15

Taxability of
amount received
as Bonus from the
service recipient
as part of
consideration for
being distributed
to Employees

Foodsutra Art of Spices
(P.) Ltd. [2023] 150
taxmann.com 259 (AARTELANGANA)

The applicant was receiving regular amounts on canteen services provided by them and annually they
also received further amounts with the nomenclature of bonus. The bonus received from service
recipient was meant to be paid to their employees and if the applicant retained a portion of the Lump
Sum amount received for payment of bonus, then as per applicant he was liable to pay GST at the
rate applicable to Intermediary services on the commission retained and for rest of the amount he was
liable to pay GST at rate of 5%, which was arrived after excluding the commission from the entire
bonus, as it would be included as value of supply of canteen services in accordance with Section
15(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
It was held that the consideration received by the applicant as the value of supply including the
amounts received in the name of bonus will be chargeable to tax at the rate of 2.5% under each of
CGST and he is liable to pay GST at rate of 5% on the entire Lump Sum amount received for payment
of bonus.

-