1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by Opposite Party No.1 where in paragraphs 3 to 5, it is stated as under:

“3. That the petitioner, M/s Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd., is a business entity registered under GST in Chhattisgarh. It does import and export business through various ports of India including Paradip Port in Odisha. For certain taxable services supplied by Paradip Port Trust (PPT) to the petitioner, the PPT had issued intra-State invoice. The petitioner, claiming to get inter-State invoice, had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi who had directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional GST Commissioner to redress his grievance. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha who advised the PPT to issue inter-State IGST invoice in favour of the petitioner instead of intra-State CGST/SGST invoice.

4. That, therefore, the issue has already been resolved by CBIC. The petitioner is required to be resolved the issue by approaching PPT, opposite party No.2.

5. That in the interregnum the CBIC has already clarified inter-alia on the issue of determination of place of supply on cargo handling services provided by the Ports vide its Circular No.103/22/2019-GST dated 28-06-2019 annexed herewith as Annexure-A/1. Besides the petitioner, M/s. Bagadia Brothers Pvt. Ltd. has also been advised vide office letter No.10612/CT dated 08-08-2019 to take up its issue directly with the Paradip Port authorities basing on the said circular.”

3. Meanwhile, the Petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.8183 of 2018 in the High Court of Delhi and pursuant to the order passed in the said writ petition on 6th August, 2018, a clarification was issued to the Paradip Port Trust (PPT) (Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3) by the Commissionerate of CT & GST, Odisha 9th October 2018, where inter alia, it was stated that the nature of supply was a supply service in the course of interstate trade or commerce in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the IGST Act. The PPT was accordingly advised to consider treating the supply of such services to the applicant as interstate supply and realize IGST in place of CGST and SGST. It is further pointed out that on 21st January 2019, the Commissionerate of CT & GST advised the Commissioner (GST Council), New Delhi on suitably advising the PPT. Consequent thereupon, the said clarification had been issued by the CBIT on 28th June 2019.

4. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 states that the PPT will be guided entirely by the advice of CBIT.

5. Since the CBIT has already provided its clarification on 28th June 2019 (Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition), a direction is now issued to the PPT to comply with the said clarification issued by the CBIT and make amendment with respect to all the Petitioner’s invoices from July 2017 onwards incorporating the levy of 18% IGST instead of 9% CGST and 9% SGST in compliance of the provision of the IGST Act. The necessary corrections be carried out not later than eight weeks from today. The said corrections will be carried out manually by the State Commissionerate. If for the above purpose, the GST portal is required to be opened of, it will be done so under the direction contained in this order.

6. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms

7. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.