Page 178 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

80 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
shown and the said amount fully reflect 18% of the taxable value in the present
transaction. Further, Sri. K.N. Sreekumaran, Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner would pertinently take this Court’s attention to Ex.P2 E-way Bill given
on Page No. 11 of the paper book of the writ petition, wherein, in column No. 3
as against taxable amount, the figures are shown as Rs. 5,80,018.76 and Rs.
92,120.80, thus totalling to Rs. 6,72,139.56/-. It is further pointed out that the fig-
ures given immediately under the table appended to Serial No. 3 of Ext.P2, the
said total taxable amount is thus shown as Rs. 6,72,139.56 and the tax amount is
correctly shown as IGST amount of Rs. 1,20,985.12, which is nothing but 18% of
the above said total taxable amount of Rs. 6,72,139.56. Accordingly, it is urged by
Sri K.N. Sreekumaran, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that Ext.P2
which is the basic documentary transaction would clearly show that the IGST tax
amount has been correctly and properly shown therein etc.
5. An argument was raised on the side of the respondents that the tax
and penalty has been demanded as per the impugned Ext.P7 order as otherwise
there will be loss of tax revenue to the State of Kerala. In that regard, the peti-
tioner has also made the following contentions :- It is pointed out that the supply
in this case is covered by the provisions in Sec. 7 of the IGST Act, 2017. As per
sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 7 where the locations of the supplier and the place of supply
are in two different States the supply shall be treated as a supply of goods in the
course of inter-State trade or commerce. Sec. 5(1) of the IGST Act provides for
levy of tax called IGST on all inter-State supplies and collected in such manner as
prescribed. In the matters relating to registration, accounts and records, returns,
payment of tax, assessment etc. under the IGST Act the provisions of Central
Goods and Services Tax Act shall mutatis mutandis apply as specifically stated in
Sec. 20 of the IGST Act. Sec. 9 of the CGST Act deals with the levy and collection
of tax and Sec. 12 deals with time of supply of goods. As per Sec. 12(1) the liabil-
ity to pay tax on goods shall arise at the time of supply as determined in accord-
ance with the provisions of the section. These provisions would go to show that
the liability to pay tax on the inter-State supply of goods u/s. 7 of the IGST Act
would arise at the time of supply of the goods by the supplier on raising Ext-P1
invoice and Ext-P2 E-way bill. Sec. 37 of the CGST Act provides that every regis-
tered person shall furnish electronically the returns showing the outward supply
of goods as prescribed in Rule 59 of the CGST Rules. Sec. 39 provides for furnish-
ing returns electronically showing the inward and outward supply of goods, in-
put tax credit availed, tax payable etc. in accordance with Rule 61 of the CGST
Rules by filing return in Form 3B on or before the 20th day of the succeeding
month. These provisions will clearly go to show that the supplier M/s. Rukmoni
Boards P. Ltd., Tamil Nadu is liable to collect and pay the tax involved in the in-
ter-State supply of goods covered by Ext-P1 invoice and Ext-P2 E-way bill. The
above supplier being a registered taxable person in Tamil Nadu State, the IGST
involved in the sale has to be paid over before the GST Authorities having juris-
diction on it in Tamil Nadu. The provisions in the GST Acts and Rules being ex-
plicitly clear, the apprehension of the respondent that the State of Kerala is prej-
udiced by the wrong description of tax in the invoice is out of context. It is also
pointed out that the petitioner is permitted to claim the tax collected by the sup-
plier only if it is properly declared in their return of tax by payment online. If
proper payment of tax by the supplier by filing return is not made, the petitioner
will be disabled from claiming any input tax credit. In such a context petitioner
will stand to lose, for petitioner will have to pay the entire tax on the sales with-
out getting any credit for the input tax. For this reason also the suspicion of con-
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  242