Page 130 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

32 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
issue No. II the following clarifications was given which is reproduced be-
low.”
5. The contention of the Revenue is that in the invoices of this Service
Provider M/s. Natvar Parikh Industries, they only charged wharfage charges,
which were directly payable to Chennai Port Trust and since no other services
were specified for their services, which could be said to have any relation to the
export of goods exported by the Assessee M/s. Hyundai Motor India Limited,
the conditions in the Notification dated 1-4-2008 were not satisfied and therefore,
the Learned Tribunal has misapplied the decision of the Tribunal in the case of
“SRF Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur [2015 (40) S.T.R. 980 (Tri. - Del.)]” cited supra, in which
the issue was with regard to the registration of the service providers as Port Ser-
vice Providers.
6. Therefore, prima facie we are satisfied that the Learned Tribunal has
not decided the real issue arising in the matter as is sought to be canvassed be-
fore us by the Learned Counsel for the Revenue.
7. In these circumstances, we are left with no other option but to re-
mand the case back to the Learned Tribunal for deciding this issue between the
parties once again. As was expected from the final fact finding body, the Learned
Tribunal ought to have discussed the relevant facts in the light of the order
passed by the first appellate authority. But, we do not find any such discussion in
the afore quoted Paragraph 5(i) of the order passed by the Learned Tribunal and
therefore, we allow the present appeal of the Revenue, without answering the
question of law at this stage, with a direction to the Learned Tribunal to decide
the said issue, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties
once again, discussing the relevant facts in the matter. Accordingly, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 32 (Cal.)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shivakant Prasad, J.
ARVIND KUMAR MUNKA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA

1
C.R.M. No. 1259 of 2020, decided on 28-2-2020
Bail to Chartered Accountant - Offence under GST - Connivance of
fraudulent ITC passing by issuance of Invoices without supply of goods -
Compounding of offence - In view of gravity of economic offence in such cas-
es and Apex Court decision in case of P.V. Ramanna Reddy reported in 2019
(26) G.S.T.L. J175 (S.C.), bail was denied in similar matter in CRM No. 10075 of
2019 with liberty to go in for compounding - Following same, bail not granted
to accused but Trial Court given liberty to release accused on bail if accused
approaches authorities for compounding of offence with minimum deposit of
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 29 (Cal.).
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  194