9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377;2,90,520/- deposited by the DMRC on an erroneous belief that payment for services rendered by it were chargeable to tax, cannot be retained by the respondents. It is well settled that GST is an indirect tax. The burden of such tax is inevitably borne by the final recipient. In the present case, respondent no. 3 would be liable to reimburse the GST chargeable on services availed by it. But since GST is not payable in respect of such services, respondent no. 3 has not paid the said amount - the period of limitation for applying for a refund as prescribed under Section 54 of the CGST Act, would not apply where GST is not chargeable and it is established an amount has been deposited under a mistake of law. The impugned order set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount included Goods and Services Tax (GST) of ₹2,90,520/- computed at the rate of 18%. 4. Respondent no. 3 paid an amount of ₹16,14,000/- against the said invoice but did not pay the amount of GST as included in the said invoice. In order to ensure that there is no failure in complying with its statutory provisions, the DMRC deposited a sum of ₹2,90,520/- with the GST Authorities for the month of August, 2017 (under Form GSTR-3B). 5. Thereafter, the DMRC was informed by respondent no. 3 that in terms of Notification no. 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the services billed under the invoice dated 11.08.2017, were not chargeable to GST. 6. Thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the CGST Act and/or the CGST Act. The amount collected by the Revenue without authority of law is not considered as tax collected by them and, therefore, Section 54 is not applicable 10. This Court had called upon the respondents to ascertain whether the Department had accepted the aforesaid view or had appealed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in M/s Cosmol Energy Private Limited v. State of Gujarat (supra). 11. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, fairly states that the Department has not filed any appeal against the decision of the Gujarat High Court in M/s Cosmol Energy Private Limited v. State of Gujarat (supra). 12. Article 265 of the Constitution of India proscribes any levy or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
