9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e there are terms of agreement under any instrument for recovery of the tax under Section 79(1) of the Act, 2017, the same may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recovered in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section. It is therefore, undisputed that there is a provision of recovery, provided there is an agreement between the parties. In the present case also there is no dispute that such an agreement exists - In the present case it is undisputed that the procedure for deducting the amount has not been followed by the Nagar Nigam in terms of Rule 143 of Rules, 2017. In such circumstances, proceedings for recovery had to be undertaken inasmuch as the Nagar Nigam as well as the petitioner both have defaulted simu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount sought to be recovered mentioned in the citation is ₹ 10,74,000/- together with additional charges thereon. The recovery is being made as arrears of land revenue in terms of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. Challenge raised is that it is not the liability of the petitioner and rather it is the Nagar Nigam that has benefited from the contract and therefore it is the Nagar Nigam which is liable to pay the G.S.T. realisable under the Act, 2017. It is therefore, submitted that the same cannot be realised from the contractor namely the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for Nagar Nigam submits that there is a clear agreement between the petitioner and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtent of G.S.T. Thus, these being undisputed facts, recovery citation for the entire amount therefore cannot be pressed into service against the petitioner. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner undertakes to deposit the entire amount of G.S.T. to the tune of ₹ 3,24,000/-, within one month from today. In view of this admitted position what emerges, has to be viewed as to whether recovery could have proceeded against the petitioner or not. With the able assistance of Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the respondent-Nagar Nigam, we may refer to the provisions that are applicable to the controversy under the Act, 2017 for recovery of tax. Such taxes are now chargeable in relation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd revenue by the Collector of the District on a requisition by the Proper Officer . Section 79(2) of Act, 2017 further clarifies that where there are terms of agreement under any instrument for recovery of the tax under Section 79(1) of the Act, 2017, the same may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recovered in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section. It is therefore, undisputed that there is a provision of recovery, provided there is an agreement between the parties. In the present case also there is no dispute that such an agreement exists. Sri Parekh has then invited attention of the Court to Rule 143 of Chapter 18 of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 ( hereinafter referred to as the Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned in the impugned citation, now cannot be recovered from the petitioner, but sofar as the amount of G.S.T. is concerned, as narrated above, has to be realised from the petitioner and deposited with the Taxing Department. Since the petitioner himself has given an undertaking for depositing the entire amount of G.S.T., the recovery certificate stands modified to the aforesaid extent and it shall be enforced only to the extent of ₹ 3,24,000/- subject to payment by the petitioner as undertaken before us. In the event the petitioner defaults in complying with the undertaking given before this Court, it shall be open to the Taxing Department through the Proper Officer to proceed to recover the amount in question either from the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
