Page 75 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] NATIONAL PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 585
reality of the transaction. The economic reality of the transaction might
have nothing to do with either the essential features of what the parties had
agreed or the legal structure of their transaction. Moreover, economic reali-
ty had to be distinguished from economic neutrality which was a principle
of VAT law. That principle precluded, inter alia, taxable persons who car-
ried on the same activities from being treated differently for VAT purposes.
That was one of a variety of doctrines which had been established in VAT
law to prevent the distortion of competition. However, the authorities did
not support the proposition that the doctrine of neutrality required two
separate supplies to be treated as a single supply because the suppliers
were related parties and their supplies were linked.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”
10. Secondly, the two supplies do not answer to the description of be-
ing “naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordi-
nary course of business”. While they were not bundled together as a matter of
fact, in the instant case, there is also no material to suggest that they are so bun-
dled and supplied in conjunction with each other in “the ordinary course of
business”. In fact, the business model followed by the petitioner appears to have
held the field for a considerable period of time and would show that in the ordi-
nary course of business, the supplies are not bundled.
11. In my view, a finding as regards composite supply must take into
account supplies as effected at a given point in time on “as is where is” basis. In
particular instances where the same taxable person effects a continuous supply
of services coupled with periodic supplies of goods/services to be used in con-
junction therewith, one could possibly view the periodic supply of
goods/services as composite supplies along with the service that is continuously
supplied over a period of time. These, however, are matters that will have to be
decided based on the facts in a given case and not in the abstract as was done by
the AAR. I therefore allow the writ petition, by quashing Exts.P1 and P2 orders,
and remit the matter back to the AAR for a fresh decision on the query raised
before it by the petitioner company. The AAR shall pass fresh orders in the mat-
ter, based on the observations in this judgment, and after hearing the petitioner,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
12. The writ petition is disposed as above.
_______
2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 585 (Gau.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.
NATIONAL PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
W.P. (C) No. 1059 of 2020, decided on 17-2-2020
Moratorium under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) -
Validity of proceedings under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 -
Dominant provision of Section 14(1)(a) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016 being institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings
- Not necessary that only execution of judgment and decree or order of any
court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority prohibited - Aspect
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  171