Page 18 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

xvi GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 40
this project of sale of equipment/Machinery/other various apparatus -
No building, construction, fabrication, completion, erection, installation,
fitting out, improvement, modification, repair maintenance, renovation,
alteration or commissioning of any immovable property wherein transfer
of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved
in execution of contract - Most of items in list of goods and services were
in nature of replaceable machine/instruments/equipment - Such items
cannot be said to be of ‘immovable’ nature - No works contract involved
- Sections 2(19), 2(30) and 2(119) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 — In Re : Prasa Infocom & Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (A.A.R. - GST - Mah.) ....... 90
Writ jurisdiction - Alternate remedy, availability of - Quantification of
demand under Supply of Tangible Goods head disputed - Petitioner
arguing error apparent on face of record as gross receipts including
amount for Goods Transport Agent services rendered - HELD : Said
order is detailed order - If petitioner aggrieved, petitioner should only
file statutory appeal - Petitioner cannot expect Court to exercise
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India to
arrive at conclusion as to whether there was any error apparent on face of
record - By impugned writ petition, petitioner attempting to avoid
payment of pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 as
made applicable to appeals under Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 - Mere
fact that Tax Deductions at Source (TDS) may have been made by some
of service recipients under Section 194C and some under Section 194-I of
Income-tax Act, 1961, may, ipso facto not justify conclusion of wrong
assessment/demand of Service Tax - No error apparent on face of record
found - Petitioner may move Tribunal by way of appeal against order
rejecting application filed by petitioner for alleged rectification of mistake
under Section 74 of Finance Act, 1994 - Petitioner cannot bypass appellate
remedy under Finance Act, 1994 by approaching Court under Article 226
of Constitution of India - No merits in present writ petition - Article 226
of Constitution of India — S.J. Movers v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
(Mad.) ......................................... 28
— Prayer made in writ petition before High Court only seeking a direction
to Respondent No. 2 [Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central
Excise] to furnish the information as to whether Respondent No. 1 has
taken credit of the GST amount paid on rent - High Court not called upon
to adjudicate as to whether the liability to pay the taxes is on the
Petitioner or Respondent No. 1 - In so far as the Tax Department is
concerned, Petitioner who is registered with them liable to pay taxes -
Obligation to pay Service Tax/GST is irrespective of Respondent No. 1
taking credit of the taxes paid - However, availment of credit of the taxes
paid by the Lessee not affects the liability of the registered taxpayer to
pay the taxes and to recover the same - Such right of recovery to be made
in the context of the clauses contained in the lease agreement, in
appropriate proceedings - Petitioner also unable to show any provision of
law that puts an obligation on the Tax Department to furnish the
information for which the mandamus is being sought - In case the
petitioner has no such legal right, the prayer cannot be granted - Article
226 of Constitution of India — Allied Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Muthoot
Finance Ltd. (Del.) .................................... 20
_______

GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  34