Page 55 - GSTL_13th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 2

2020 ] J.S. PIGMENTS PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 141
transaction value, which is the price actually paid or payable for the said supply
of goods or services or both where the supplier and the recipient of the supply.
2. Section 15(2) mandates that the value of supply shall include any
taxes, duties, cesses, fees and charges levied under any other law in force.
3. As has been rightly contended by the Learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the Customs Department, Section 15(2)(a) is expansive. Yet Sri Go-
pinathan, the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the
amount of 1% the dealer collects from the purchaser of a car worth more than ten
lakhs, under Section 206C(1F) of the Income-tax Act, cannot be treated as an in-
tegral part of the value of the goods and services supplied by the petitioner. Ac-
cording to him, the petitioner, as the dealer of the motor vehicle, acts only as an
agent for the State to collect the income tax under Section 206C(1F). And that
amount will eventually goes to the vehicle purchaser’s credit.
4. In this context, the Learned Senior Counsel has drawn my attention
to the last portion of Section 15(2)(a), which emphasises “charging of tax, duties,
cess or fee by the supplier”.
5. Indeed, recently a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. (Judgment
dated 30-7-2018 in Civil Appeal No. 3327/2007) [2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)] has
held that any ambiguity in taxing provision should be resolved in the State’s fare.
Yet, in this context, to conclude either way it needs further and deeper adjudica-
tion. Thus, the petitioner has raised a prima facie issue, which needs Court’s atten-
tion.
6. I, therefore, hold that the authority will not act on the clarification at
Sl. No. 5 of Ext.P1 pending the disposal of the writ petition. I, however, clarify
that this arrangement shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and
without prejudice to the rights of the Department in collecting the taxes in future
if the writ outcome is adverse to the petitioner.
_______

2020 (39) G.S.T.L. 141 (Cal.)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sampati Chatterjee and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, JJ.
J.S. PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL

MAT No. 460 of 2020 and CAN Nos. 3513 & 3526 of 2020, decided on 8-7-2020
1
Documents seized under GST law - Supply of copies thereof - Provi-
sion exists in Section 67 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 that per-
son from whose custody documents are seized under Act ibid shall be entitled
to make copies thereof - However, petitioner himself has not availed this op-
portunity till now - Accordingly, impugned order of Single Judge cannot be
faulted on this account and is sustained - Petitioner now directed to take steps
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from W.P. No. 5476(W) of 2020 and CAN No. 3176 of 2020, decided on 18-6-2020 by
Calcutta High Court.
GST LAW TIMES  13th August 2020  55