Page 33 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] INDEX - 2nd April, 2020 xxxi
No rule enacted by Central Government dealing with determination of
value of service portion in composite contract of sale involving not only
service component but also sale of built up area along with undivided
share of land involving also sale of goods included in total consideration
paid for purchase falling in clause (b) of Section 66E ibid, as in instant
case - Delhi High Court’s judgment in Suresh Kumar Bansal [2016 (43)
S.T.R. 3 (Del.)], followed - Sections 66E and 67 ibid read with Rule 2A of
Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 [as amended by Service
Tax (Determination of Value) (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2012 w.e.f. 1-7-
2012] — Vasudha Bommireddy v. Assistant Commr. of S.T., Hyderabad (Telangana) ....... 52
VAT not leviable on photographic services - See under PHOTOGRAPHIC
SERVICES ....................................... 75
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 Services 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 — Sutherland Mortgage Services Inc. v. Pr. Commr. of Cus.,
CGST & C. Ex., Kochi (Ker.) ................................ 40
— invocable when issue related to interpretation of statutory provisions
though alternate remedy available against the impugned order - Article
226 of Constitution of India — GE T & D India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of
C. Ex., Chennai (Mad.) ................................... 89
— Maintainability - Existence of alternative remedy - Appeal can be against
any order or decision of an adjudicating authority on payment of
demanded tax or penalty and 10% of disputed amount - Petition against
seizure of goods dismissed by single judge on availability of alternative
remedy - Tax in its entirety has been paid to the Corporation which, in
turn, was obligated to remit said amount to State Tax Department - Since
petitioner disputed levy of penalty in its entirety, only requirement was
for it to deposit 10% of such penalty to file an appeal - If assessee
complied with demand notice all proceedings in respect of notice shall be
deemed to be concluded, in which event goods would be released -
Order of Single Judge modified with direction to petitioner to deposit
entire amount of penalty with concerned authorities, and furnish proof of
deposit along with appeal - As soon as petitioner prefers an appeal
enclosing thereto proof of payment of total penalty, subject goods to be
released in petitioner’s favour - Section 107 of Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India — Agarwal
Timber Suppliers v. State of Uttarakhand (Uttarakhand) .................... 61
— Summons under GST law not stayable under writ jurisdiction - Perusal of
five summons issued to petitioner indicate that same is for purpose of
enquiry in respect of availment of ITC without receipt of goods -
Admittedly, petitioner has not appeared before summoning officer even
once nor has given any response in writing to these summons - Thus,
bona fide of petitioner are not established as he is not co-operating in
enquiry - Under these circumstances, stay against summons, if granted,
would tantamount to granting him immunity from arrest and shield him
against enquiry - Decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Court relied upon by

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  97