Bai Mamubai Trust VS Suchitra

The summary covers a legal case concerning the applicability of Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the mode of discharge of GST liabilities. It begins with the appointment of Mr. V. Sreedharan, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae by the court on November 24, 2017, due to the significance of the issue involving the liability to pay GST on payments made to the Court Receiver as royalty. The court also directed notice to be given to the Additional Solicitor General, setting the next hearing for December 13, 2017.

On December 13, 2017, the Learned Amicus Curiae proposed that the Learned Advocate General should also be heard as GST is shared between the Centre and the State. Consequently, the papers were forwarded to the Learned Advocate General for consideration.

The primary issues considered in this judgment revolve around the applicability of GST and the method of discharging GST liabilities.

The summary pertains to a legal case regarding the applicability of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in matters where a Court Receiver is appointed by the Bombay High Court under Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

1.Appointment of Amicus Curiae: On 24th November 2017, the court appointed Mr. V. Sreedharan, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist in understanding the issue of GST liability concerning payments made to the Court Receiver. This decision was made considering the importance of the matter. The case was scheduled to be heard again on 13 December 2017.

2.Involvement of Additional Solicitor General and Advocate General: On 13th December 2017, the Amicus Curiae suggested involving the Learned Advocate General as GST is a matter shared between the Centre and the State. The court directed the papers to be forwarded to the Learned Advocate General.

Issues Considered: The main issues considered in this judgment are as follows:

1.Applicability of GST: The court examined whether GST is applicable to services or assistance provided by the Court Receiver appointed under Order XL of the CPC.

2.Mode of Discharge of GST Liability: The court considered the mode of discharge of statutory liability arising from GST in cases where a Court Receiver is appointed. Principal questions arising from the Court Receiver’s Report include:

(i) Whether GST is liable on services rendered by the Court Receiver.

(ii) Whether GST applies to royalty or other payments made to the Court Receiver.

(iii) Whether certain circumstances, like illegal occupation of premises, constitute a ‘supply’ under the CGST Act, making payments subject to GST.

(iv) If GST is applicable, how should it be discharged?

Key Points from the Judgment: The judgment provides clarification on the applicability of GST to payments made to Court Receivers and the discharge of statutory liabilities arising from such payments. It addresses specific scenarios, such as illegal occupation of premises, to determine whether they fall under the purview of GST. Additionally, the involvement of Amicus Curiae and the Learned Advocate General underscores the complexity and significance of the legal issues involved.

Overall, the judgment aims to provide clarity and guidance on the interpretation and application of GST laws in cases involving Court Receivers, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and protecting the interests of all parties involved.

an order dated 24th November 2017, the court appointed Mr. V. Sreedharan, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist in a case concerning the liability to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on payments made to the Court Receiver as royalty. The court also directed notice to be given to the Additional Solicitor General, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on 13th December 2017.

During the proceedings on 13th December 2017, the Amicus Curiae suggested involving the Learned Advocate General due to the shared jurisdiction of GST between the Centre and the State. Consequently, the papers were forwarded to the Learned Advocate General for input.

The central issues before the court revolved around the applicability of GST and the method of discharging this statutory liability in cases where a Court Receiver, appointed under Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is involved. The key questions for consideration included whether GST is payable on services provided by the Court Receiver, on royalty or other payments made to the Court Receiver, and whether such payments constitute a ‘supply’ under the CGST Act, 2017.

The court examined these issues with reference to the provisions of the CGST Act, noting the similarity between these provisions and those of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act). The court focused on the CGST Act for its analysis.

The case originated from a lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff seeking possession of three shops forming part of a restaurant business known as “Manranjana Hotel.” The suit alleged trespass and unauthorized occupation.

In one specific motion filed within the suit, the court had issued an order on 12th / 20th July 2017, which presumably set the stage for the subsequent legal proceedings and the need for clarification on GST liability.

Overall, the court’s judgment addressed the complex legal issues surrounding GST liability concerning payments made to Court Receivers and provided clarity on the matter, considering both statutory provisions and the factual background of the case.

The summary provides an overview of a legal case concerning the applicability of Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the mode of discharge of this statutory liability in matters where the Court Receiver is appointed by the Bombay High Court under Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Here are the key points outlined in the summary:

1.Appointment of Amicus Curiae: On November 24, 2017, the court appointed Mr. V. Sreedharan, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist in addressing the issue of GST liability concerning payments made to the Court Receiver.

2.Notice to Additional Solicitor General: The court also directed notice to be given to the Additional Solicitor General, indicating the significance of the matter.

3.Issues Considered: The main issues revolve around the applicability of GST and the mode of discharging the liability in cases where the Court Receiver is appointed by the Bombay High Court.

4.Principal Questions Considered: These include whether GST is payable on services or assistance rendered by the Court Receiver, whether it applies to royalty or payments made to the Court Receiver, and specifically in the case at hand, whether certain payments constitute a ‘supply’ under the CGST Act.

5.Reference to CGST Act: The court refers to the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act) to address the legal framework governing GST.

6.Factual Background: The case involves a suit filed by the Plaintiff seeking recovery of possession of three shops constituting a restaurant. A Court Receiver was appointed due to the Defendant’s unauthorized occupation.

7.Appointment of Court Receiver: The Court Receiver was appointed pending the determination of a preliminary issue of limitation, with the Defendant required to pay compensation to remain in possession of the premises.

This summary encapsulates the key legal and factual aspects of the case concerning GST liability and the appointment of a Court Receiver in the context of property possession disputes.

Download PDF;

For Reference Visit;

Read Another Case Law;

GST Case Law;