Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

xi. Alternatively, even if the transaction in the present dispute is not to be considered a 'supply', the Court Receiver is nevertheless liable to be registered under the CGST Act inasmuch as there may be a situation where the Court Receiver is liable to pay GST under Section 92.

xii. Separately, it is submitted on behalf of the State that the meaning of the word 'Court' as per the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and as determined by the Supreme Court in Virindar Kumar Satyawadi vs. The State of Punjab5 and Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Arun Shourie 6 does not include the ofce of the Court Receiver. Therefore, services rendered by the Court Receiver are not entitled to 5 AIR 1956 SC 153.

39. I am unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that the meaning of the word 'Court' as per the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and as determined by the Supreme Court in Virindar Kumar Satyawadi (supra) and Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Arun Shourie (supra) does not include the ofce of the Court Receiver and therefore, services rendered by the Court Receiver do not fall under Paragraph 2 of Schedule III of the CGST Act.

40. The said decisions are distinguishable on facts and the principle it lays down. In Virindar Kumar Satyawadi (supra) the Supreme Court considered whether the District Magistrate functioning as the Returning Ofcer was a kpd 51 / 83 PD-NMSL-227-2017.doc 'court' from whose order an appeal would lie under Section 476B of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the facts of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the Returning Ofcer is not a 'Court'. The relevant findings of the Supreme Court are as under:

(Emphasis Supplied).

41. In Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Arun Shourie (supra) the Supreme Court considered the meaning of 'Court' under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This was in the context of an editorial published in the Indian Express containing allegedly scandalous statements with respect to a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, who was appointed as Chairman, Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to probe into alleged acts of omissions and commissions by a former Chief Minister of Karnataka. The Supreme Court held: