Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTIOCL Not Entitled To Collect GST From LPG Distributors On Penalty Imposed...

IOCL Not Entitled To Collect GST From LPG Distributors On Penalty Imposed For Non-Attendance Of Leakage Complaint: Kerala High Court 

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Kerala High Court has held that Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) is not entitled to collect GST from LPG distributors on penalty  imposed for non-attendance of leakage complaint.

The bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon has observed that amounts are sought to be recovered as a deterrent against future breach of contract between the petitioners and the respondent Corporation. The amounts sought to be recovered are under no stretch of imagination being collected towards tolerating the violation of the terms of the MDG. Therefore, the IOCL is not entitled to collect GST from the petitioners/LPG distributors.

The petitioners are the distributors of LPG appointed by the IOCL challenging orders imposing penalty, appellate orders, as also the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2018 under which the penalty is imposed.

The penalties were imposed with respect to a complaint raised by a consumer/customer alleging non-attendance of a leakage complaint. The petitioner has raised a contention to the effect that there was no deliberate non-attendance of the complaint as alleged, that the complaint was received at its end only on 21.8.2020 by 4:33 pm, that the complaint was attended by the mechanic through a telephone call by 5:30 pm/5:45 pm etc. 

The petitioners have challenged the GST demand of Rs.28242.45 and it is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The IOCL has sought to demand Rs.22,140 towards GST.

The petitioner contended that the demand of GST as above was without any justification and arbitrary. He points out that there is no “supply of service” so as to demand GST from the petitioners. 

The court while allowing the petition held that an agreement cannot be presumed to exist between the parties also. Here, the amounts sought to be collected from the petitioners towards penalty are not towards tolerating an act/situation. Instead, the amounts sought to be recovered are for not following the terms of the agreement/MDG framed by the respondent corporation. 

Case Details

Case Title: M/S.Aswathy Gas Agencies Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case No.:  WP(C) NO.2552 OF 2021

Date: 12/12/2024

Counsel For Petitioner: Adv. R.Surendran

Counsel For Respondent: M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar

Read More: Govt. Challenges GMR Order In Delayed Adjudication Affecting 250 Cases: Supreme Court Restrains HC And CESTAT From Deciding Till Final Order

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Cash Refund Loses Its Character as Tax or Interest; 10% Pre-Deposit Required for GST Appeal: GSTAT Registry

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Hyderabad Registry has opined that an amount received by a...

Can Disputed ITC Claim Amount to “Fraud or Suppression”? Allahabad HC Stays S. 74 Proceedings Against Samsung Display 

The Allahabad High Court has prima facie questioned the Revenue’s attempt to invoke the...

Bombay High Court Questions 6 Month Limit Under GST Notification for S. 16(5) ITC Benefit

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has raised an important question concerning...

More like this

Cash Refund Loses Its Character as Tax or Interest; 10% Pre-Deposit Required for GST Appeal: GSTAT Registry

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Hyderabad Registry has opined that an amount received by a...

Can Disputed ITC Claim Amount to “Fraud or Suppression”? Allahabad HC Stays S. 74 Proceedings Against Samsung Display 

The Allahabad High Court has prima facie questioned the Revenue’s attempt to invoke the...

Bombay High Court Questions 6 Month Limit Under GST Notification for S. 16(5) ITC Benefit

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has raised an important question concerning...