9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ature chose to grant unconditional exemption with respect to payment of upfront amounts. While amending that Notification, vide Notification No. 32/2017, dated 13th October, 2017 though other changes were made to add by way of an activity for which allotment of plots were made exempt from tax and certain Corporations were also sought to be included wherein ownership of the Central Government or the State Government etc. may exceed 50%, at the same time, no amendment was made to the original Notification to introduce any condition for grant of that exemption. The exemption made available to the petitioner by virtue of the original Notification issued under Section 11 read with order of the Authority for Advance Ruling, is unconditional. Consequently, the letter dated 24.08.2018 issued on behalf of YEIDA is wholly unfounded in law and also in facts. Besides absence of conditions imposed by the legislature while granting exemption, no fact allegation has been made in the said communication of any specific condition having been violated by the petitioner. The impugned communication dated 24.08.2018 is quashed - Petition allowed. - Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh And Hon'ble Vino ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 24.08.2018 is wholly illegal and without authority of law and arbitrary. 6. In reply, learned Standing Counsel would submit, as on date the revenue authority has not intervened. Thus, it has neither demanded any tax nor it has taken any view over the matter. At the same time, in all fairness, learned Standing Counsel would submit that there exist Exemption Notifications referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also there is no doubt that the order of the Authority for Advance Ruling dated 06.06.2018 has attained finality. 7. Shri Singhal would however contend that the YEIDA has demanded the tax as the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions of the Exemption Notification. However, as to the condition not complied by the petitioner, Shri Singhal could not satisfy the Court either as to any specific condition existing under the Exemption Notification or the compliance that may not have been made by the petitioner. Last, it has been submitted that demand of tax made by the YEIDA is only provisional. The petitioner after depositing that amount may seek its refund from the revenue authorities. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of industrial plots, provided by the State Government Industrial Development Corporations or Undertakings to industrial units. Nil Nil 11. The above Notification was amended vide further Notification No. 32/2017, dated 13th October, 2017. The relevant extract of the said notification reads as below: Notification No. 32/2017-Central Tax (Rate) New Delhi, the 13th October, 2017 G.S.R ...(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (I), vide number G.S.R. 691 (E), dated the 28th June, 2017, namely:- (e) in serial number 41, for the entry in column (3), the following entry shall be substituted namely:- Upfront amount (called as premium, salami, cost, price, development charges or b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority for Advance Ruling, whether GST was chargeable on premium and lease rent on plots allotted to hospitals against lease granted for more than 30 years. 16. In its turn, the Authority for Advance Ruling cleared that doubt raised by YEIDA, in the following terms: RULING GST is not applicable i.e. exempted on upfront amount, if the conditions are satisfied as mentioned Sl. No. 41 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 32/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.10.2017 17. In absence of any challenge raised to that order by any party and it being a fact that the said order has attained finality, it is strange to note that the YEIDA which is not the revenue authority chose to issue the communication dated 24.08.2018, to the petitioner. In material part, that communication reads as below:- 18. We find, the stand taken by the YEIDA to be wholly unfounded in law. Any doubt that may have arisen from the language of the Exemption Notification stood resolved by the Authority for Advance Ruling. A specific query had been raised by the YEIDA, if the premium charged on the plot allotted to set up a Hospital would be covered under the exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Authority for Advance Ruling was that such exemption would be available subject to conditions as mentioned at serial no. 41 of the above described Notifications. 21. As has been extracted above, the Exemption Notification though does contain Column no. 5, to specify the condition for grant of exemption yet, against Entry no. 41 of that Notification there never existed any specification or condition for grant of exemption. In fact, the original Notification No. 12/2017, dated 28th June, 2017 mentions the word Nil against Column no. 5, against Entry no. 41 thereto. Thus the legislature chose to grant unconditional exemption with respect to payment of upfront amounts. While amending that Notification, vide Notification No. 32/2017, dated 13th October, 2017 though other changes were made to add by way of an activity for which allotment of plots were made exempt from tax and certain Corporations were also sought to be included wherein ownership of the Central Government or the State Government etc. may exceed 50%, at the same time, no amendment was made to the original Notification to introduce any condition for grant of that exemption. 22. Seen in that light, we find, the exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
