2022 (12) TMI 1039 - HC - GST

Refund claim for excess payment of tax - HELD THAT - Though there were two issues involved before the learned Appellate Authority, one was whether the recipients of services or goods can apply for refund claim for excess payment of tax or not and this issue was held in favour of the petitioners by the learned Tribunal. Another issue was whether the building purchased by the petitioners from its purchaser, namely M/s. Eveready Industries Limited is taxable under the CGST Act or not and on this issue learned Appellate Authority has held against the assessees/petitioners by elaborate discussion in its order with cogent reasons. There are no reason to interfere with the aforesaid impugned order - this is not a case where the impugned order is without jurisdiction or there is violation of principle of natural justice or there is any procedural irregularity in the matter and/or Constitutional validity of any provisions of law is involved even though no alternative remedy is available - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the impugned order of the Appellate Authority under the CGST Act dated 31st March, 2021.
2. Whether recipients of services or goods can apply for refund claim for excess payment of tax.
3. Whether the building purchased by the petitioners is taxable under the CGST Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to the Impugned Order
The petitioners challenged the impugned order of the Appellate Authority under the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority had two issues before it. The first issue was whether recipients of services or goods can apply for refund claim for excess payment of tax. The learned Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioners on this issue. The second issue was whether the building purchased by the petitioners from M/s. Eveready Industries Limited is taxable under the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority held against the petitioners on this issue, providing detailed reasoning in its order.

Issue 2: Refund Claim for Excess Payment of Tax
The Appellate Authority discussed whether recipients of services or goods can apply for a refund claim for excess payment of tax. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioners on this issue. However, the Appellate Authority's decision on the second issue concerning the taxability of the building purchased by the petitioners was not in their favor.

Issue 3: Taxability of the Building Under CGST Act
The Appellate Authority examined whether the building purchased by the petitioners is taxable under the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority noted that the supplier had charged and collected GST on the sale of the building. The Appellate Authority referred to relevant provisions of the CGST Act and Schedule III, which covers the sale of land and buildings. The Appellate Authority analyzed the nature of the building purchased, which was a prefabricated building classified under GST HSN Code 9406. The Appellate Authority concluded that the building purchased did not fall under the exemption provided in Section 7(2)(a) of the CGST Act and that the supplier did not provide construction services of commercial buildings. Therefore, the Appellate Authority held that the contention of the petitioners regarding the taxability of the building was not sustainable.

In conclusion, the High Court, after considering the reasoning provided by the Appellate Authority and finding no jurisdictional issues, violation of natural justice, procedural irregularity, or constitutional validity concerns, dismissed the writ petition challenging the impugned order.