RP Techsoft International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India And The Commissioner of Central GST And Central Excise, Thiruvananthapuram
Central Excise
2018 (3) TMI 350 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 265 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 1-2-2018
W. P. (C). No. 40371 of 2017
Central Excise
MR. A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
For The Petitioner : Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar Sri.P.Gopinath Sri.K.John Mathai Sri.Joson Manavalan Sri.Kuryan Thomas Sri.Paulose C. Abraham
For The Respondent : Sree Lal N. Warrier, SC,
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claim that they procure IT products and install the products in the premises of customers after customizing it according to the choice and options of such customers.
2. The petitioner claims to have paid service tax for the service undertaken by them. Their activities include purchasing from different vendors and integrate such components of hardware and software to make such products suitable for the customers. According
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d the point of law involved in the matter with respect to the facts and therefore, this Court cannot invoke its power under Article 226 of the Constitution as an appellate authority to interfere with such assessment order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner committed a grave jurisdictional error in passing the order. According to the learned counsel, it is overlooking facts involved in this matter, the Commissioner passed the order. Learned counsel particularly submitted that the Commissioner only had adverted to the point of law involved without referring to the factual situation involved. According to him, there is no corelation between the law discussed by the Commissioner with the facts involved and therefore, the matter should be remitted back for reconsideration.
5. At the first instance I can say that the order is not legally sustainable. As adverted in the impugned order itself, it has to be shown that the petitioner has manufactured goods.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sideration as a 'manufacturer of goods' or not.
6. The petitioner's case is that they have provided service to different customers in the assessment year and each of such services would depend upon the requirement of such customers. The main activity, according to the petitioner, is the supply and installation of goods purchased from the vendor by integrating such goods to the need of such customer. Therefore, in such situation, the Commissioner will have to examine each of such activities on a focal point whether it fall within the meaning of manufacturing goods or not. In view of the fact that the Commissioner had not adverted to the vital aspect, it is necessary to remand the matter back to the Commissioner for reconsideration.
7. The power of the Commissioner would depend upon the factual situation. In that sense, without adverting to the factual situation, the Commissioner could not have exercised the power. That means the Commissioner had erred in exercising the jur
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =