Bai Mamubai Trust – 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 193 (High Court – Mumbai)

Services provided by the Court Receiver appointed by Court under Order XL of CPC shall be treated, neither as a Supply of services nor Supply of goods.

Facts: In this case, the Plantiff trust filed the suit seeking to recover possession of property from where it was carrying on business (suit premises). The plaintiff filed Notice of Motion in the above Suit for interim reliefs pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit. An Order came to be passed in the said Notice of Motion. By the said Order, the Court Receiver, Bombay High Court was appointed as receiver of the Suit Premises. The Court Receiver was directed to take formal possession of the Suit Premises and was directed not to disturb the physical possession of the defendant. The defendant was permitted to remain in possession of the Suit Premises as an agent of the Court Receiver under an agency agreement to be executed with the Court Receiver, on payment of monthly ad hoc royalty.

Issue: Whether GST is liable to be paid on services rendered by Court Receiver appointed by Court under Order XL of CPC. Also, whether GST is 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.

Held: The Bombay Hon’ble Court in this matter, held that the fees of the Court Receiver fall under Item 2 of Schedule III to the CGST Act, as it is for a service provided by an officer of the Court. Accordingly, this service is not treated as a supply of goods or services within the meaning of the CGST Act. The Court Receiver implements orders of the Court and functions under the supervision and direction of the Court. Accordingly, the fees or charges paid to the Court Receiver are not liable to GST.

Subscribe

to our newsletter. Please enter your email and press submit.

Menu