The Bombay High Court in the case Dharmendra M. Jani Versus Union of India observed and has upheld the validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2), wherein the said court deal with the place of supply under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, IGST Act.
The bench comprising of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Abhay Ahuja in the case observed and has stated that the provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, IGST Act are legal, valid, and are constitutional as it has been provided that the provisions as stated under Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) are confined in their operation to the provisions of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, IGST Act only and the same came cannot be applicable for the levy of tax on services under the CGST and MGST Acts.
However, the court stated that the Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act creates a deeming fiction that in the case of intermediary services, even if the location of the recipient of the services being outside India. Thus, the place of supply shall be the location of the supplier of the intermediary services.
It has also been stated under Section 8(2) of the Act, the person carrying on a business through a branch, an agency, or through a representational office in any territory shall be treated as having an establishment in that territory.
Further, the petitioner in the plea also challenged the vires of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The bench headed by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in the case observed and has held that Section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is ultra vires the Act on 09.06.2021.
Adding to it, the bench observed and has held that section 13(8)(b) as well as section 8(2) of the IGST Act as constitutionally valid in Writ Petition.
Further, the Chief Justice in the case had referred the matters for the opinion of the third judge.
The bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni. Justice G.S. Kulkarni has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, IGST Act.
Accordingly, the court observed and has held that the provisions as stated under Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST were legal, valid, and constitutional.
The counsel, Bharat Raichandani appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Anil C. Singh represented the respondent.
