LalithaMuraleedharan VS Range Forest Officer

both to be treated as interstate supply when the supplier is located in India and the place of supply is outside India.

3.4 The writ petition is opposed by respondents. The respondents contend that petitioner is liable to pay IGST. There is no exemption available for payment of IGST on the goods purchased by the petitioner in the e-auction held on 4.7.2018 as confirmed on 13.7.2018.

In section 3.2 of the case, the petitioner asserts that despite a clarification received (Ext.P6), the first and second respondents insisted on the payment of 18% Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on goods purchased by the petitioner in an e-auction on July 4, 2018, as confirmed on July 13, 2018. The petitioner contends that this demand for IGST is illegal and unauthorized, prompting the filing of the writ petition.

Moving to section 3.3, the petitioner argues that their location in a notified Special Economic Zone (SEZ) makes the purchase of goods from a dealer outside the territorial limits of Kerala an interstate transaction. The Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) governs such transactions, providing for the levy and collection of tax by the Central Government on interstate supplies. Section 7(5)(b) of the IGST Act specifies that supplies to or by an SEZ developer or unit are considered interstate trade or commerce.

Section 3.4 discusses the determination of the place of supply under Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act. It states that when goods involve movement, the place of supply is where the movement terminates for delivery to the recipient. In this case, the petitioner purchased goods intended for delivery at their industrial unit within the SEZ, emphasizing that taxation should apply based on the final movement of goods to their designated location, not at the initial receipt at the Government Sandal Depot, Marayoor.

Lastly, section 3.5 addresses zero-rated supply under Section 16 of the IGST Act. It defines zero-rated supply as including the export of goods or services and the supply of goods or services to a SEZ developer or unit. This provision highlights transactions that are eligible for tax exemptions or refunds under the IGST Act, emphasizing the petitioner’s contention that their transactions fall under this zero-rated category due to their SEZ status.

These sections collectively outline the petitioner’s legal arguments challenging the imposition of IGST on their interstate purchases and asserting their eligibility for tax exemptions under the IGST Act based on their SEZ status and the nature of the goods transactions involved.

The petitioner, a company situated in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), contested a demand for 18% Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) imposed by the first and second respondents. The dispute arose from goods purchased in an e-auction on July 4, 2018, where the respondents insisted on IGST payment despite the petitioner’s contention that such a demand was unauthorized and illegal.

According to the petitioner, being located in an SEZ, purchases from outside the state of Kerala constitute interstate transactions under the IGST Act, 2017. They argued that under Section 7(5)(b) of the IGST Act, transactions involving SEZ developers or units are considered interstate trade. Furthermore, Section 16 of the IGST Act allows for zero-rated supply, including supplies to SEZ units, permitting either tax-free supplies under a bond or letter of undertaking or claiming refunds on tax paid.

The respondents, in their defense, referenced the terms of the e-auction notification from May 22, 2018, which outlined conditions binding on the auction process, including tax implications. They did not dispute the factual timeline or events but argued that the auction conditions, which include tax obligations, were legally binding.

Consequently, the petitioner sought relief from the demand for 18% IGST, arguing its illegality, while the respondents maintained the validity of the demand based on the auction’s terms and conditions.

In essence, the case revolves around the interpretation of tax liabilities under the IGST Act concerning transactions involving SEZ units and the applicability of auction terms in determining tax obligations.

It appears you’re looking for a summary or analysis of a legal case involving conditions related to the sale of sandalwood, particularly focusing on Condition No.14 from the judgment. Here’s a summarized breakdown:

The case revolves around a dispute where the petitioner, a bidder in a sandalwood sale, allegedly failed to comply with Condition No.14 of the sale terms. Condition No.14 stipulates that the successful bidder must remit payments in two installments: first, 35% of the bid value (after adjusting Earnest Money Deposit) within 7 working days of receiving the acceptance letter; and second, the balance amount along with applicable VAT, Forest Development Tax (FDT), and other taxes within specified timelines (40 days for hardwoods and 15 days for softwoods).

The respondents argue that the petitioner did not fulfill the payment requirement as per Condition No.14. They assert that the sale of sandalwood was completed entirely within the State of Kerala, involving all stages from offer to delivery and receipt of consideration at Marayoor Depot. Therefore, they argue that this transaction cannot be categorized as an interstate supply under the GST framework.

The respondents’ position is supported by their communication (referenced as Ext.P6) to the petitioner, clarifying that if the sale were treated under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST), specific conditions would apply.

In summary, the crux of the case hinges on whether the petitioner complied with the payment terms outlined in Condition No.14 and the characterization of the sandalwood sale as interstate or intrastate under GST regulations.

The present writ petition seeks several reliefs from the court. Firstly, it requests the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate directive. This is aimed at directing respondents 1 to 3 to refrain from adjusting the petitioner’s remittance towards any losses or costs incurred by the department. Additionally, the petition seeks other reliefs that the court deems suitable under the circumstances.

The petition arises from a situation where the respondents allegedly violated conditions set during the sale confirmation on July 13, 2018. Despite the pending adjudication of the substantive issues in Writ Petition No. 24675 of 2018, the respondents purportedly canceled the confirmed sale. The petitioner asserts readiness to comply with sale conditions, having deposited a substantial amount and expressing willingness to adhere to these conditions, provided that the subject supply is either zero-rated or not liable to an 18% tax. This readiness was affirmed as recently as November 19, 2018, according to Ext.P15.

In summary, the petitioner argues that the cancellation of the confirmed sale was unwarranted during ongoing legal proceedings and seeks judicial intervention to prevent the adjustment of remittances and to obtain other appropriate remedies deemed fit by the court.

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus or similar relief to prevent respondents 1 to 3 from adjusting remittances towards departmental losses. The petition stems from non-compliance after the sale confirmation on July 13, 2018, with details outlined earlier. The petitioner asserts readiness to comply with sale conditions if the supply is zero-rated or exempt from 18% tax, citing a deposit made and willingness to pay without GST as late as November 19, 2018. The e-auction notice of May 22, 2018, referenced tax obligations under older regimes, now replaced by GST and IGST, which the petitioner claims entitles them to zero tax due to their SEZ industrial unit status. The petitioner argues that prior decisions should not bind them under current GST and IGST interpretations regarding tax liability and place of supply.

If you need further details or specific points emphasized, feel free to ask!

The petitioner seeks relief through a writ petition concerning the cancellation of a sale confirmed on July 13, 2018. The issue arose due to non-compliance with conditions set by respondents during the sale confirmation. Despite ongoing litigation in Writ Petition No. 24675 of 2018, respondents 1 and 2 cancelled the sale, prompting the petitioner to deposit a substantial amount to demonstrate readiness to comply with sale conditions, contingent on the supply being zero-rated or exempt from 18% tax.

Mr. A. Kumar argues that changes in tax laws under GST and IGST Acts alter the statutory obligations referenced in the e-auction notice dated May 22, 2018, originally tied to Kerala Value Added Tax and Central Sales Tax regimes. He contends that a prior adjudication in W.A. No. 2665 of 2015 should not bind the petitioner regarding IGST reliefs. The petitioner, an industrial unit in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), asserts entitlement to zero percent tax on purchases under Section 2(86) of the CGST Act, pertaining to place of supply.

The crux of Mr. Kumar’s argument revolves around Sections 7 and 8 of the IGST Act, emphasizing that supplies to SEZ developers or units fall under interstate trade or commerce, thereby subject to IGST, even if auction conditions were established pre-GST/IGST implementation. He cites Section 7(5)(b) and the proviso to Section 8, which excludes SEZ transactions from intrastate supply definitions. Mr. Kumar asserts that respondents 1 and 2 lack authority to determine tax liability, which should be addressed by the third respondent.

In conclusion, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus or similar order to prevent adjustment of remittances towards departmental losses and requests additional appropriate relief from the court.

This summary captures the main legal and factual arguments presented in the provided text.

The writ petition concerns a dispute arising from the cancellation of a confirmed sale by respondents despite conditions being met by the petitioner, including depositing a substantial amount and agreeing to pay without GST. The petitioner, an industrial unit in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), argues that under GST and IGST Acts, they are entitled to zero-rated tax treatment for their purchases. The petitioner participated in an e-auction where the sale was confirmed but faced demands for IGST. Legal arguments focus on the applicability of GST/IGST laws to SEZ transactions and the petitioner’s compliance with tax obligations. The petition seeks relief to prevent adjustment of remittances and any adverse tax implications, and asks for appropriate court directions and orders.

If you need more detailed analysis or specific sections summarized further, feel free to ask!

It appears that the petitioner, Dr. Thushara James, regularly participates in e-auctions conducted by the forest department to purchase sandalwood. In this instance, the petitioner successfully bid on Lot No.198/18, which consisted of 315.00 kgs of class X sandalwood, during an auction held on July 4th and 5th, 2018. On July 13th, 2018, the auction was confirmed in favor of the petitioner.

According to Dr. Thushara James, the petitioner was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the auction, including Condition No.14, which seems to be pertinent to the issue at hand. The petitioner’s argument stresses that they are obligated to adhere to the agreed-upon conditions of the auction, having willingly participated with full knowledge of the terms.

The controversy seems to stem from the petitioner’s objection to paying 18% CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) as part of the sale consideration, despite it being a specified condition. It’s asserted that once the petitioner became the successful bidder, they cannot dispute the applicability of these conditions, which were clearly outlined beforehand.

Moreover, it’s highlighted that the entire process of sale, from initiation to completion, took place entirely within the state of Kerala. The goods were supplied to the Government Sandal Depot in Marayoor, marking the completion of the sale within the state borders.

Therefore, the contention revolves around whether the petitioner should be permitted to take possession of the goods, given their objection to fulfilling the CGST requirement, despite having participated in the auction under clear and known conditions.

This summary encapsulates the key points of the petitioner’s position and the context surrounding the dispute over the sandalwood auction conducted by the forest department.

It appears you’re referring to a legal case involving an e-auction for the purchase of sandalwood. Here’s a summary based on the details provided:

Dr. Thushara James, representing the petitioner, argues that the petitioner is well-acquainted with the procedures of e-auctions conducted by the forest department, including the terms and conditions such as Condition No. 14. The petitioner participated in an e-auction held on July 4-5, 2018, and successfully bid for Lot No. 198/18, comprising 315.00 kgs of class X sandalwood. The auction was confirmed in favor of the petitioner on July 13, 2018.

Upon confirmation, the petitioner was required to pay 35% of the sale consideration along with forest department taxes. Despite the specified CGST rate of 18%, the petitioner raised objections to this condition. Dr. James argues that objections regarding the applicable conditions should not be raised after becoming the successful tenderer. She asserts that the entire sale process, from initiation to completion, occurred within the state of Kerala, with delivery taking place at the Government Sandal Depot in Marayoor. Therefore, according to her, the sale was completed within the state’s jurisdiction.

Addressing objections raised in Ext.P6, Dr. James contends that even if the transaction is considered under IGST, suppliers have the option to supply goods without charging 18% IGST by submitting a letter of undertaking, or they can pay IGST and subsequently claim a refund. She emphasizes that the legal definition of ‘export’ extends to goods supplied to SEZs, provided that actual delivery occurs within the SEZ. In this case, she argues that delivery at the Government Sandal Depot is crucial, as it determines the nature of the transaction.

The Government Pleader, referencing Ext.R1(d) W.A. Judgment, argues that delivery at Marayoor Sandal Depot constitutes an intrastate transfer, supporting the respondents’ stance based on Ext.P16, which they claim justifies the cancellation of the sale as per Ext.P3.

In conclusion, the dispute revolves around the petitioner’s compliance with the auction conditions, particularly regarding tax obligations, and the interpretation of delivery terms affecting the transaction’s classification.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: