Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 351 - HC - GSTValuation u/s 15(3) - Validity of GST on volume discount - Petitioner submited that, GST is levied and paid on the entire invoice amount, which includes volume discount. - Demand of GST on volume discount would be double taxation. - HELD THAT:- Although the Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, Section 7 of the TNGST Act, 2017 would ordinarily refrain from entertaining a writ petition against an assessment order, where the petitioner has an effective and an alternate remedy, the Court is of the view that this is a fit case for entertaining this writ petition - This Court is of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the cases deserve to be remitted back to pass a de-novo order in the light of the observation contained herein. Both the clarifications (clarification in Circular No.92/11/2019-GST dated 07.03.2015 and clarification issued vide circular No.92/11/2018-GST dated 07/03/2019) are not relevant to the facts of the present case either in support of the present writ petition or in favour of the respondent to dismiss the writ petition. They are not in any event binding on this Court in terms of the decision of the Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries [2002 (2) TMI 115 - SC ORDER]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that clarification of the Board are not binding on the Courts though they may bind the Assessing Officers and field formations - Under the scheme of the respective GST Enactments, 2017 each instance of supply of goods or services are chargeable to tax under Section 9. The expression “supply” has been defined in Section 7 if the respective GST Enactments, 2017. The discount offered to the petitioner can impact only the “transaction value” of the supplier of the petitioner. As far as the “transaction value” of the petitioner is concerned, it is the price which has been paid or actually payable for the supply of the goods - there is no scope for confusing the discount offered to the petitioner and the discounted price at which the petitioner effects further sale to its customers. They are two independent transactions and there is no scope for intermingling them for demanding tax from the petitioner. The discounted price at which the petitioner sells the goods is relevant only for determining the “transaction value” adopted by the petitioner - Unless, the discounted price itself was on account of the subsidy as a result of which while the supplier would have been compensated without including into the “transaction value” in the invoice, question of adding such value to the transaction value of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. The cases are remitted back to the respondent. The respondent is directed to pass order on merits in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order - Petition allowed.
|