9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is submitted that there was no admission on part of the appellant for reimbursement of VAT charges and the alternative submission raised by the appellant before the Tribunal was taken out of context to record that it was an admission on his part - It is submitted that the Tribunal has also failed to appreciate the fact that once the final demand note dated 13.12.2016 was issued by the respondent without indicating any VAT charges and possession over the property in lieu thereof was handed over to the appellant, there was no question or provision of law under which a supplementary demand notice could have been issued in the year 2019. Submissions advanced by learned counsel for appellant have force and requires consideration for which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? 2. Whether an alternative submission made by the appellant without prejudice to the other submissions, can be treated as an admission made by the appellant? 3. Whether the respondent is entitled to recover amount in perpetuity once the final demand note has been issued and settled by the appellant to the satisfaction of the respondent? Order on application for interim relief Heard Mr. Atharva Arya, learned counsel for appellant. Appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation Development) Act, 2016 has been filed against judgment and order dated 30.07.2021. Learned counsel for appellant submits that in the present appeal, the appellant is raising a limited grievance only with regard to direction issued in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention to final demand note given by respondent to appellant dated 13.12.2016 to submit that it does not indicate the demand for payment or reimbursement of any VAT. It has been submitted that subsequent to payment of the amount required to be paid from the appellant to respondent in the final demand note, possession over the property in question was handed over to appellant on 15.03.2017. It is submitted that handing over of possession of the constructed property to appellant clearly was indicative of the factor that the appellant had complied with all the demands made or raised by the Builder/Respondent. It is submitted that once all the demands raised by respondent had already been fulfilled and the possession over the property has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Tribunal was taken out of context to record that it was an admission on his part. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the written submissions made before the Tribunal to indicate that liability for reimbursement of VAT charges had been specifically denied by appellant and it was only an alternative plea that 'in any case, the appellants cannot be made liable to pay any amount towards VAT exceeding ₹ 3,33,52,284/-, being 21.52% of the amount' which has been taken as an admission on the part of the appellant, which was not at all an admission. It is submitted that the Tribunal has also failed to appreciate the fact that once the final demand note dated 13.12.2016 was issued by the respondent without indicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
