2024 (12) TMI 830 - HC - GST

Challenge to demand raised by the respondent, Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority from the petitioner towards GST and premium - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the overall fact situation of the case, the demand raised dated 28.08.2024 pertaining to the GST by the respondents being wholly non-speaking, apparently contrary to the notifications and the advance ruling and judgment of this Court, the same is set aside. The respondents would be free to raise demand by passing a detailed speaking order indicating the liability of the petitioner to pay the amount of GST after taking into consideration the notifications relied on, as noticed hereinbefore, advance ruling and the judgment of this Court and any other notifications issued subsequent thereto before 05.12.2023. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to demand raised by Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority for GST and premium payment.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges the demand raised by the respondent authority for GST and premium payment. The petitioner had entered into a lease deed with the respondent for constructing a building for a higher secondary school. The petitioner contends that all terms and conditions of the lease, including payment of premium, have been fulfilled except for a small amount. The demand for GST was communicated to the petitioner, which the petitioner argues is baseless and contrary to exemption notifications and court judgments. The petitioner is willing to pay the balance premium amount but is facing refusal unless the GST amount is also paid.

The petitioner relies on exemption notifications and a court judgment to support their argument that the demand for GST is unjustified. The respondent, on the other hand, mentions modifications in exemption requirements but fails to demonstrate any specific reference to these modifications in the communication demanding GST. The court finds the demand for GST to be non-speaking, contrary to notifications and previous rulings, and sets it aside. The court directs the respondents to issue a detailed order justifying the GST liability, taking into account relevant notifications, advance rulings, and court judgments before the lease deed date.

The court orders the respondents to accept the balance premium payment from the petitioner and provides for a hearing opportunity before issuing the detailed order. The petition is allowed with these directions and observations. The judgment emphasizes the importance of a detailed and reasoned approach in raising demands, especially in matters involving taxation and contractual obligations.