Page 14 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

xii GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
true that there is no specific mention of term ‘Place of Supply’ in any of
clauses from (a) to (g) of Section 97(2) ibid, clause (e) of said Section on
‘determination of liability to pay tax on goods or services or both’ is wide
enough to cover all aspects relating to levy of GST - Thus, any question as
to whether a supply is zero-rated or not would ultimately mean whether
supply is leviable to GST or not - Making clause (e) wider as compared to
other pigeon hole clauses of Section ibid, legislator’s intention is clear and
tax authorities have to take correct prospective on issues relating to
export of services - In this era of globalization, foreign investors also
require certainty and precision on tax liability - In view of above, held
that AAR has jurisdiction to address aforesaid issue - Impugned order set
aside and matter transferred to AAR to admit application, hear it and
pronounce ruling under Section 98(4) ibid on merits within 3-4 months -
Section 97(2) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of
Constitution of India — Sutherland Mortgage Services Inc. v. Pr. Commr. of Cus.,
CGST & C. Ex., Kochi (Ker.) ............................... 40
Advance Ruling Authority’s jurisdiction, interpretation of Section 97(2) of
CGST Act - See under INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE ............ 40
Advocate of GST fraudsters arrested as co-accused for assisting in
incorporation of bogus firms, bail admissible - See under BAIL ......... 93
Alternative remedy’s availability when not a bar to entertain writ
jurisdiction - See under WRIT JURISDICTION .................. 61
Anticipatory bail granted to accused of generation of fake and fabricated
documents for availing ITC - See under BAIL .................. 19
Appeal remedy absent against order of non-maintainability of Advance
Ruling application, writ jurisdiction invocable - See under WRIT
JURISDICTION ................................... 40
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation - Service of adjudication
order - Contention that order sent to wrong address and order dated 31-
5-2017 not received till 8-2-2018 when copy of Order received by assessee
pursuant to its request - HELD : Defect in address typographical error
and Commissioner (Appeals) correctly held that small typographical
mistake could not be considered as wrong address - Service stands
complete if process sent by registered post with acknowledgment due to
person for whom intended - Mere typographical error that too of merely
one slash being substituted by numeral one with rest of address being
same cannot lead to presumption that postal services will not be in
position to make out said error - That assessee had knowledge of order
discerned from its letter to Department - Mandate of procedural law of
limitation must be given full effect if apparent mala fide or negligence on
assessee’s part existed - Dismissal of appeal not interfered with — Gayatri
Pest Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Indore (Tri. - Del.) ........... 141
Appellate Tribunal - Non-speaking order - Refund of Service Tax - Port
services - Prima facie, it appears from order of First Appellate Authority
that service provider has only charged wharfage charges directly payable
to port authorities and therefor held that said charges are not covered
under Port services - In its order Tribunal has not decided real issue
involved but has issued a non-speaking order in favour of assessee
without any discussion on facts of case as brought out in order of First
Appellate Authority - Tribunal being last fact finding authority ought to
have discussed relevant facts before setting aside order of First Appellate
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  78