9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 532 - HC - GSTRefund of tax - It is the contention of the petitioner that while the excess premium was returned by the DMRC, it refused to refund the amount deposited by it towards tax as the amount lay with the respondents - HELD THAT - DMRC ought to have been arrayed as a party in the matter, since, even if it is not a necessary party, in view of the observations made in the impugned order, it surely is a proper party. List the matter on 03.08.2022.
Issues involved:
1. Refund of amount deposited by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) on behalf of the petitioner under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Analysis: 1. The petitioner approached the court through a writ petition since the Appellate Tribunal under the CGST Act, 2017/DGST Act, 2017 was not in place. 2. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, was aggrieved by the non-refund of the amount deposited by DMRC with the revenue authorities on its behalf. 3. The amount deposited by DMRC was claimed to be non-tax in nature and should be refunded to the petitioner. 4. The grievance arose due to a land lease agreement between the petitioner and DMRC for a parcel of land, where the actual land area provided was less than initially intended. 5. The petitioner contended that no supply under the CGST Act/DGST Act took place for the excess land area not utilized. 6. While the excess premium was returned by DMRC, the amount deposited towards tax remained with the revenue authorities, leading to the petitioner's dissatisfaction. 7. The court noted that DMRC should have been made a party to the proceedings, considering its involvement in the matter based on the impugned order. 8. Consequently, DMRC was included as respondent no.3 in the case, and Mr. Bhatia was directed to file an amended memo of parties within a week. 9. Notice was issued to respondent nos.1 and 2, along with the newly added party, respondent no.3/DMRC, through various modes, including email. 10. The case was scheduled for the next hearing on 03.08.2022 to further address the issues raised regarding the refund of the deposited amount by DMRC on behalf of the petitioner.
|
