JUDGMENT :

S.J. Kathawalla, J.

By an Order dated 24th November 2017 (Coram: S.C. Gupte, J.), this Court appointed Mr. V. Sreedharan, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae. The Court observed :

"Considering the importance of the issue involved in the matter, which bears generally on the liability to pay GST on any payment made to the Court Receiver by way of royalty, Mr. V. Sreedharan, Senior Advocate, is appointed as an amicus curiae to assist the Court on the issue.

2. Let notice also be given to Additional Solicitor General. Stand over to 13 December 2017 at 3.00 p.m."

2. On 13th December 2017, the Learned Amicus Curiae suggested that the Learned Advocate General may also be heard as GST is shared between the Centre and the State. Accordingly, the papers were directed to be forwarded to the Learned Advocate General as well.

ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THIS JUDGMENT

3. Broadly stated, the issues to be considered by this Court is the applicability of Goods and Services Tax ("GST") and the mode of discharge of this statutory liability (where it arises) in matters where the Court Receiver is appointed by the Bombay High Court ("Court") under Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 ("CPC").

4. The following principal questions arise for consideration in this Court Receiver's Report:

i. Whether GST is liable to be paid on services or assistance rendered by the Court Receiver appointed by this Court under Order XL of the CPC ?

ii. Whether GST is liable to be paid on royalty or payments under a different head paid by a defendant (or in a given case by the plaintiff or third party) to the Court Receiver in respect of properties over which a Court Receiver has been appointed ?

iii. Specifically, in the facts of the present Suit, where the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is in illegal occupation of the Suit Premises: Whether there is any 'supply' within the meaning of the CGST Act? Whether payment of royalty for remaining in possession of the Suit Premises, either during the pendency of the Suit, or at the time of passing of the decree, falls within the definition of 'consideration' for a 'supply' chargeable to payment of GST under Section 9 of the CGST Act ?

iv. If in any circumstance GST is payable or applicable to payments made to the Court Receiver, how is that statutory liability to be discharged? Is it to be paid by the Defendant / party in occupation directly, or by the Court Receiver ?

5. In addressing these questions, reference is made to the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 ("CGST Act"). It may be noted that the provisions of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("MGST Act") are in pari-materia with those of the CGST Act. As pointed out by the Learned Advocate General the provisions also have the same numbering and appear in the same sequence, with the only exception being the transitional provisions and repeal and savings provisions, which are not relevant to the issues presently under consideration. As such, the Court has considered the issues raised with reference to the CGST Act.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ARISING FROM THE COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT

6. The Plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking to recover possession of three shops, which together constitute a restaurant, where the Plaintiff trust is carrying on business in the name and style of "Manranjana Hotel" ("Suit Premises"). The Suit proceeds on the cause of action of trespass / unauthorized occupation.

7. The Plaintiff filed Notice of Motion (L) No. 227 of 2017 in the above Suit for interim relief’s pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit. An Order dated 12th / 20th July 2017 came to be passed in the said Notice of Motion. By the said Order dated 12th / 20th July 2017, a preliminary issue of limitation was framed and pending determination thereof, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay was appointed as receiver of the Suit Premises since