9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 936 - HC - GSTRefund of the GST paid - grievance of the Petitioners is that Respondent No.3-CIDCO has not applied for refund and hence has filed this petition - section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Petitioners states that Petitioners would apply to the Respondents-Tax Authorities invoking section 54 of the Act claiming refund. The Respondents-Tax Authorities contend that Petitioners may not be entitled to apply under section 54 of the Act. However, it is for the Petitioners to make this application and it is for the authorities to deal with the same as per law. The writ petitions is disposed off since Petitioners intend to apply for refund as per section 54 of the Act to the Respondent-Tax Authorities - petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issue involves the liability of cooperative housing societies to pay GST on leasehold premium paid to CIDCO, and the right of the petitioners to claim refund under section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Liability to pay GST on leasehold premium The petitioners, cooperative housing societies, had paid leasehold premium to CIDCO on which GST was charged. The petitioners contended that they were not liable to pay the GST and requested CIDCO to apply for a refund of the GST paid. Despite communications to CIDCO requesting a refund, CIDCO did not apply for the refund. The petitioners argued that they were not liable to pay GST and should be refunded. Issue 2: Right to claim refund under section 54 of the CGST Act The petitioners also sought to claim a refund under section 54 of the CGST Act, which allows any person to claim a refund of tax paid. The petitioners' counsel highlighted the provisions of the Act, specifically referring to clause 2(g) of the second Explanation of section 54, which sets a limitation period for claiming a refund. The petitioners expressed dissatisfaction that their request under these provisions had not been considered by the Tax Authorities, as the communications were not directly addressed to them. The petitioners' counsel stated that the petitioners would now apply to the Tax Authorities under section 54 of the Act to claim a refund. While the Tax Authorities contended that the petitioners may not be entitled to apply under section 54, the court held that it was for the petitioners to make the application and for the authorities to process it in accordance with the law. Therefore, the writ petitions were disposed of, with the court directing the petitioners to make refund applications within four weeks. The concerned authorities were instructed to communicate their decision to the petitioners within six weeks from the date of the application, subject to time-bound commitments. In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of, allowing the petitioners to apply for a refund under section 54 of the CGST Act, with a timeline set for the authorities to process and communicate their decision.
|
