Summary / Headnotes
Held - The Supreme Court held that there was no reason to take a different view from that of the High Court and dismissed the petition, while clarifying that it had not examined (i) the question of exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 effective from 01-07-2017, and (ii) the scope of Clause 2(a) of Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017 regarding “licence to occupy land is a supply of services,” leaving these issues open (Para 1).
Petition dismissed in favour of department
AI Summary of the Case
Question Answered
Issue 1: Whether the question of exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 was examined?
Views: The Court clarified that it had not examined the issue of exemption granted by this notification effective from 01-07-2017; the matter was left open (Para 1).
Issue 2: Whether the scope and ambit of Clause 2(a) of Schedule II to the CGST Act, 2017 was examined?
Views: The Court specifically stated it had not examined the scope of the expression “licence to occupy land is a supply of services” in Clause 2(a) of Schedule II; this issue was also left open (Para 2).
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE THE BENCH OF
Mr. Sanjiv Khanna and
Mr. J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Builders Association of Navi, Mumbai
Versus
Union of India
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 23068 of 2018, dated 09-11-2022
REPRESENTED BY:
Shri Raghuraman, Sr. Adv.,
Mrs. Sandhya Raghuraman,
Shri S. Sukumaran,
Shri Sailesh Seth, Advs.,
Shri Anand Sukumar, AOR,
Shri Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. and
Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR for the Petitioner
Shri Vikramjit Banerji, ASG,
Shri Nachiketa Joshi,
Shri Alabhya Dhamija,
Ms. Nisha Bagchi,
Shri Siddharth Sinha,
Shri Shivam Singhania,
Shri Raman Yadav,
Shri Ashish Wad,
Mrs. Tamali Wad,
Shri Siddharth Mahajan,
Shri Ajeyo Sharma,
Shri Anand Dilip Langde,
Shri Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Shri Aaditya A. Pande,
Shri Avineesh Jha, Advs.,
Shri Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Shri B. Krishna Prasad and
Shri Sachin Patil, AOR's for the Respondent
[Order]. - We do not find any good ground and reason to take a different view than the one expressed by the High Court. However, it is clarified that we have not examined the question of exemption granted by Notification No. 12 of 2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 w.e.f., 01.07.2017. We have also not examined the scope and ambit of the expression in Clause 2 (a) of Schedule-II "licence to occupy land is a supply of services" of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. These aspects are left open.
2. Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petition is dismissed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.