Page 139 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] SUTHERLAND MORTGAGE SERVICES INC. v. PR. COMMR. OF CUS., CGST & C. EX. 41
Writ jurisdiction - Advance Ruling application under GST - Absence
of appeal remedy against order of non-maintainability of application - Order
of AAR at admission stage of application - While appeal remedy exists against
orders of AAR passed on merits under Section 98(4) of Central Goods and Ser-
vices Tax Act, 2017, there is no such remedy if application is not admitted at
threshold in order under Section 98(2) ibid - In view of above writ jurisdiction
maintainable - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 18]
Interpretation of Statute - Jurisdiction of AAR - Clearly clauses (a) to
(d) and (f) to (g) of Section 97(2) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
are in specific terms whereas clause (e) caters to larger issue of “determination
of liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both” - Not being in specific
“pigeon hole”, this clause would cover all issues effecting GST liability -
Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 21]
Case remanded
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Joseph Prabakar and Rajesh Nair, Advocates,
for the Petitioner.
Smt. Preetha S. Nair, SC and Dr. Thushara James,
for the Respondent.
[Judgment]. - The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) are
as follows :
“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or di-
rection as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circum-
stances of the case, calling for the records leading to the issue of Ex-
hibit P-2 Order and after scrutinizing the same, to strike down and
quash the same and to hold that in the given set of facts available
before the AAR, the transaction in question would not attract GST
since the subject transaction would quality for “Export of Services”
in terms of Section 2(6) of IGST Act, 2017.
(ii) Issue such other appropriate writ, direction or order as deemed fit
by this Honourable Court, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard Sri. Joseph Prabakar, Learned Counsel appearing for the peti-
tioner, Smt. Preetha S. Nair, Learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) ap-
pearing for R-1 & R-3 and Dr. Thushara James, Learned Government Pleader
appearing for R-2.
3. The case projected in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows :- The pe-
titioner, M/s. Sutherland Mortgage Services Inc., now functioning in the office
premises in the Cochin Special Economic Zone, is a branch office of its principal,
M/s. Sutherland Mortgage Service Inc. USA. The petitioner is stated to be en-
gaged in the business of providing information technology enabled services such
as mortgage orientation, primary servicing, special servicing, cash management
and analytics & reporting. It is stated the principal company, M/s. Sutherland
Mortgage Service Inc. USA is incorporated in the United States of America and,
as per the applicable laws of that country, the principal company which is en-
gaged in such mortgage business is prevented from outsourcing its work to any
other third party. Therefore, by the compulsion of the US laws, the principal
company has made an intra-company agreement with the petitioner, M/s.
Southerland Mortgage Services Inc. (the latter being only the branch office of the

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  203