Page 24 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

xxii GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
should not be construed as mandatory provision - Section 140(3)(iv) ibid
already held unconstitutional in Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (17)
G.S.T.L. 3 (Guj.)] - Decision in 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 664 (Guj.) under review
passed following above case - Cannot be held per incuriam as sought for
by Department in review application on the ground that 2018 (19)
G.S.T.L. 228 (Guj.) and 2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 440 (Guj.) were not placed
before Court - Said decisions rendered without following binding
precedents of Supreme Court not applicable - Review application
dismissed — Nodal Officer v. Goods And Services Tax Council (Guj.) ............ 84
Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) - Levy of - Supply/delivery of
goods at Indian port - Ocean freight - Freight for services provided by
person located in non­taxable territory by way of transportation of goods
by vessel from place outside India upto Customs station of clearance in
India - Not taxable - Notification No. 8/2017-I.T. (Rate) and Entry 10 of
Notification No. 10/2017-I.T. (Rate) already declared as ultra vires
Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Main prayer in writ
petition already granted in 2020 (33) G.S.T.L. 321 (Guj.) - Assessee to
approach appropriate authority for refund of IGST paid on such freight -
Competent Authority to consider claim keeping in mind decision of
Gujarat High Court and not to raise any technical issue with regard to
claim for refund of IGST amount — Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. v. Union of India
(Guj.) ......................................... 82
Interconnection usage charges under Telecom Services, Cenvat credit
admissible - See under CENVAT CREDIT .................... 119
Interpretation of Statutes - Cancellation of GST registration - Default in
filing returns for continuous period of six months - Such default not only
should exist at time of issuing SCN but also at time of passing
cancellation order - Section 29(2)(c) of Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India — Phoenix Rubbers v.
Commercial Tax Officer, SGST Deptt., Palakkad (Ker.) ..................... 8
— Exemption Notifications - Well-settled law that any interpretation which
renders Notification as futile piece of Legislation has to be avoided — Inox
Wind Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida (Tri. - All.) ................. 123
— Exemption Notifications - When wordings in statute are clear, plain and
unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, Court is bound to
give effect to said meaning irrespective of consequences - In applying
rule of plain meaning, interpretation, any hardship or inconvenience
cannot be basis to alter meaning of language employed by Legislature
especially in fiscal statute and penal statute — Inox Wind Ltd. v. Commissioner
of Service Tax, Noida (Tri. - All.) .............................. 123
— Exemption Notifications - While interpreting taxing statute, importance
has to be given to clear expression used therein and no intent can be
examined in case of any unambiguity in wordings of Notification - As
such intention of Legislature has to be gathered from language used in
Notification — Inox Wind Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida (Tri. - All.) ...... 123
— 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 -
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  88