Page 69 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] ABBOTT HEALTHCARE P. LTD. v. COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAX, THRISSUR 579
hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the CESTAT against the order
dated 23 December, 2013.
9. The Learned Additional Solicitor General doubted whether an ap-
peal had been filed. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
states that an appeal had, in fact, been filed and that the proof of the filing of the
appeal is available with the appellant. Accordingly, we are of the view that, hav-
ing regard to the above circumstances and since the entire amount by way of tax,
penalty and interest has been recovered, the interests of justice would warrant
that an opportunity be granted to the assessee to contest the appeal on merits.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has also fairly stated before
the Court that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) shall now be can-
vassed only on merits.
10. For the above reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this
case, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the
High Court dated 14 March, 2019. We accordingly restore Appeal No. 118/2013
(H-II) ST to the file of the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service
Tax (Appeals-II & IV), Hyderabad for disposal on merits. However, having re-
gard to the delay on the part of the appellant, we direct the appellant to pay costs
to the respondent quantified at Rs. 50,000 which shall be a condition precedent to
the hearing of the appeal. The costs shall be deposited by the appellant within a
period of three weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing
which the appellant shall lose the benefit of this order and, in consequence, the
dismissal of the appeal shall stand.
_______

2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 579 (Ker.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambair, J.
ABBOTT HEALTHCARE P. LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAX, THRISSUR
1
W.P. (C) No. 17012 of 2019, decided on 7-1-2020
Authority for Advance Ruling - Jurisdiction of - Question referred for
decision was whether supply of goods by assessee was taxable supply under
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - However, without deciding that
question, AAR decided that supply was composite supply - HELD : AAR’s
finding on composite supply was without jurisdiction and beyond terms of
reference. [paras 7, 8]
Composite supply under GST - Supply of instrument to hospital by
one taxable person while reagents, calibrators and disposables supplied his
distributor - Distributor was another taxable person who purchased these
items from first taxable on principal to principal basis - HELD : Supplies were
made by two different taxable persons, and they were not naturally bundled
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2019 (23) G.S.T.L. 49 (App. A.A.R. - GST) and 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 109 (A.A.R. -
GST).
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  165