Page 206 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

676 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
Interest and duty paid before the issuance of Show Cause Notice, penalty
not imposable - See under PENALTY ....................... 202
— Imposition of - Maximum percentage of interest of 36% imposed
mechanically - It was arbitrary without any exercise of discretion
indicating non-application of mind - C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 28-2-2015
allows instalment payments maintaining balance between recovery of
arrears and survival of business - Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 —
Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India (Gau.) ............. 536
Intermediary services - Applicant is the sole agent of their parent company
in Italy for the SAARC area and gets commission for sale orders booked
for Advanced Automated CNC Machines - “Agency Agreement” also
entered into with another company in Italy to promote and develop the
sale of machines produced by supplier for the markets in SAARC area -
Applicant receives a tax included lump sum payment to be paid
quarterly and in addition also gets a commission of 5% on the first five
machines sold - Applicant, therefore, undoubtedly an agent of the parent
company Fom Industrie s.r.l, Italy as well as M/s. Universal Pack s.r.l,
Italy - Accordingly, supply of services of the applicant under these
transactions squarely falls under Intermediary services and taxable under
forward charge mechanism - Section 2(5) of Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 - Section 2(13) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 — In Re : Fom Aluminium Machines Pvt. Ltd. (A.A.R. - GST - Kar.) ........... 420
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
— Delegation of powers - Normally discretion entrusted by Parliament to
administrative organ must be exercised by that organ itself - However,
settled position of law that maxim “delegatus non-potest delegare” must
not be pushed too far - Maxim does not embody rule of law and indicates
rule of construction of statute or other instrument conferring authority -
Prima facie, discretion conferred by statute on any Authority, intended to
be exercised by that authority and by no other person - However,
intention may be negatived by any contrary indications in language,
scope or object of statute - Construction that would best achieve purpose
and object of statute ought to be adopted — Nathalal Maganlal Chauhan v. State
of Gujarat (Guj.) ..................................... 145
— Delegation of powers - Whether a person other than that named in
empowering statute allowed to act will depend upon statute which lays
down provision for delegation - Nature of subject matter, degree of
control retained by person delegating, and type of person or body to
whom power is delegated will be taken into account while delegating
powers — Nathalal Maganlal Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (Guj.) .............. 145
— 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
GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  206