Court mandates reconsideration of GST applicability for specific payments, ensuring all legal arguments are addressed.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner – which is stated to be a company – challenges Ext.P3 order issued by the 3^rd respondent – Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling; as also Ext.P5 Appellate order issued by the 4^th respondent – Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Kerala, on various grounds.

2. Sri.R.Jaikrishna – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the question that his client posed, through Ext.P2 application for an advance ruling, was “whether reverse charge liability under Notification No.13/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 is attracted on the payment made to the Government of Kerala under Section 27A of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2018 for change of description of land from wetland to ordinary land in Government of Kerala Village office records and for permission for construction of office complex for the purpose of business.” (sic). He pointed out that the 3^rd respondent – Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling, framed the following issues, as evident from Ext.P3:

(i) Whether there was any supply of service within the meaning of Section

7 of CGST Act 2017; and (ii) Whether there was any consideration for rendering the service by the service provider.

3. Sri.R.Jaikrishna, however, complained that the 3^rd respondent - Authority, did not consider whether the fees paid by his client, under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (‘Act’ for short), would comprise ‘supply’, to thus fall within the meaning of Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act , 2017 (‘CGST Act’); but went on to then hold that such activity cannot be treated as “not falling under supply of goods or supply of services.” He contended that the holdings of the Advance Ruling Authority are in error; but that, even though his client challenged it before the 4^th respondent – Appellate Authority, the opinion rendered was the same, as evident from Ext.P5. He explained that his client, therefore, has no other option, but to approach this Court through this Writ Petition.

4. Sri.P.R.Sreejith – learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 and 5, in refutation, submitted that the holdings of the Authorities as reflected in Exts.P3 and P5 are without error because, going by the notification in question, only those activities which come squarely within the ambit of Articles 243G and 243W of the Constitution of India, are exempted from being treated as ‘supply’ or ‘sale’; and that therefore, the payment of charges under Section

27A of the ‘Act’ would certainly stand excluded.

5. Smt.Thushara James – learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri.Renjish S. Menon – learned Central Government Counsel, adopted the afore submissions of Sri.P.R.Sreejith; affirming that the impugned orders are without error.

6. We face a practical impediment in deciding this matter on its merits at the first instance, for the reasons we will presently state.

7. No doubt, the question encompasses two issues, as has also been found by the Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling, as reflected in Ext.P3, extracted supra.

8. The argument of the appellant is also two fold, namely, that the fee paid under Section 27A of the ‘Act’ does not fall within the purlieus of Section 7 (1) of the ‘CGST Act’; and alternatively, that, even if it were so, the notification issued under (2) thereof would render it exempt.

9. No doubt, both Exts.P3 and P5 orders answer the second limb affirmatively, saying that it is only those activities which fall within the sweep of Articles 243G and 243W of the Constitution of India that can be treated to be not a ‘supply’ or not a ‘service’; however, the question whether the activity falls within the umbr