Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 175 - HC - GSTRate of GST to be charged by respondent U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad - taxable at the rate of 1% or 8% - case of petitioners is that the rate of 8% presently specified by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad is contrary to the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated 07.05.2019 - HELD THAT - Reference has also been made to certain internal communications between the different authorities of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. Primarily, rate of tax is to be charged as per notification issued under the GST Acts, 2017 (Central U.P.). Therefore, the said issue need not be adjudicated at this preliminary stage that too in a dispute brought by the allottee against the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. The writ petition disposed off with the observation, in case the petitioners place a copy of this order before respondent no.2, the said respondent may ascertain the correct rate of tax applicable to the transaction from the appropriate authority under the GST Act and issue necessary communication to the petitioners in that regard.
Issues involved: Dispute over GST rate (1% or 8%) charged by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.
Summary: Dispute over GST Rate: The petitioners challenged the 8% GST rate set by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, claiming it contradicted government instructions. The Court noted that tax rates should align with notifications under the GST Acts. The Court declined to rule on the matter at this stage, especially in a dispute initiated by the allottee against the Parishad. The Court disposed of the writ petition without delving into the case's merits. It directed the petitioners to present the order to respondent no.2 for clarification on the correct tax rate under the GST Act. Respondent no.2 was instructed to communicate the accurate tax rate to the petitioners within three months. Any current GST liability deposit requirement for the petitioners was stayed pending the final communication from respondent no.2.
|