Page 273 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 767
Works Contract service not applicable to construction of canals/pipelines
for water under EPC Turnkey Project awarded by Government - See
under CONSTRUCTION OF CANALS/PIPELINES .............. 468
— Telecom Tower Installation and painting service, construction of petrol
pumps and industrial buildings, erection of signalling system for
railways on turnkey basis which also involve supply of materials such as
cement, steel, etc. to be considered as works contract prior to 1-6-2007 -
Further, work related to commissioning and installation of telecom
equipments on behalf of telecom service providers on sub-contract basis
also to be considered as works contract prior to 1-6-2007 - Demand prior
to said date not sustainable on aforesaid activities - Erection of signalling
system for railways since exempted from Service Tax, demand in respect
of such service not sustainable even post 1-6-2007 - Section 65(105)(zzzza)
of Finance Act, 1994 — Aster Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus. & C. Ex.,
Hyderabad-III (Tri. - Hyd.) ................................ 527
— vis-à-vis Construction of Complex services - See under CONSTRUCTION
OF COMPLEX SERVICE .............................. 509
Writ jurisdiction - Exercise of - Challenge to summons based on clarificatory
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 34/8/2018-GST, dated 1-3-2018 is maintainable -
Subject matter of challenge was clarificatory circular and challenge to
impugned summons was only ancillary relief - Article 226 of Constitution
of India — Torrent Power Ltd. v. Union of India (Guj.) .................. 385
— Judicial review confined to decision making process and not directed
against the decision itself - Court of judicial review scrutinizes the
correctness of the decision making process and not the decision itself -
Court has to find whether the decision making authority acted within its
jurisdictional limits, committed errors of law, adhered to the principles of
natural justice or acted in breach thereof, and whether the decision is
perverse or not - Powers of judicial review, thus, distinct from powers of
an appellate court - Order of Appellate Authority can be judicially
reviewed and not appealed against - Merely because two views are
possible, a court sitting in judicial review not to exercise its discretion in
favour of an alternative view to that of the authority - Article 226 of the
Constitution of India — Dabur India Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Ghaziabad (All.) .... 9
— not invocable at show cause notice stage for recovery of differential
amount wrongly carried forward in electronic credit ledger under GST
through TRAN-1 statement - See under SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ....... 129
— Petitioners given full opportunity of hearing before the authorities below -
Appellate Authority as well as Original Authority adhered to principles
of natural justice while deciding the controversy - Order of the Appellate
Authority reflects due application of mind to the relevant facts and
material in the record and supported with cogent reasons - Findings of
Appellate Authority being not arbitrary or perverse, not open to judicial
review - Consequently, discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
Constitution of India not to be exercised — Dabur India Ltd. v. Commissioner of
CGST, Ghaziabad (All.) .................................. 9
— Revision of declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 - Time-limit for revision of
declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under Rule 120A of Uttar Pradesh
Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Further period, as may be extended
by Commissioner, which is provided under Rule 120A ibid, cannot go
beyond the time-frame provided under Rule 117 ibid - Period of
extension statutorily circumscribed at 90 days and that too is possible

GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  369