9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Services Tax (MGST) Act - Registry of this Court accordingly to receive intimation from the learned Advocate for the said Respondents authorities, to furnish bank account details of the concerned jurisdictional authorities so that the said amount can be transferred by this Court. The said compliance would be completed within two weeks from today and on receipt of such information, office to deposit the amount as directed within one week thereafter. The CGST Authorities and SGST Authorities to consider the Petitioner s case sympathetically with regard to interest and penalty - Petition disposed off. - G. S. KULKARNI JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. Ankita Katakdhond i/by L.C. Tolat Company. For the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner for construction of such project. 4. The petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.2,16,38,153/- towards the premium charges in respect of the development work on the subject property. In addition, the Khopoli Municipal Council has also directed the respondent to pay the Goods and Services Tax @18% on the premium charges and informed the petitioner that they would be given input credit. Accordingly on 30th August 2019, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.38,94,868/- with the Khopoli Municipal Council towards 18% GST on the premium charges. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that despite receipt of the GST amount by the Khopoli Municipal Council, it failed to make the payment and deposit the GST amount with the said GST A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... development work and further paid an amount of Rs.38,94,868/- under reverse charge mechanism, being GST on premium charges. However, the amount should have been deposited with Respondent No. 2 but erroneously was deposited with Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner vide various letters requested Respondent No. 1 to deposit the said amount with Respondent No. 2. However, having failed to do so, the Petitioner has approached this Court for the relief for appropriate directions against Respondent No. 1. 5. Admittedly, the Petitioner erroneously deposited sum of Rs.38,94,868/- with Respondent No. 1, when infact they should have deposited with the GST Authorities. This has further resulted the Petitioner being deprived of the input tax credit u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2963 of 2022 in case of Arun Krishnachandra Goswami Vs. Union of India Ors. whereby in similar circumstances in so far as the interest was concerned, the Court made the following observations :- 12. We also hope that in view of the unusual facts and circumstances of this case, the CGST authorities and SGST authorities would consider the Petitioner s case sympathetically when it comes to interest and penalty. Unless they have some other reason, Petitioner should not be saddled with interest and penalty. 10. In our opinion, in the peculiar facts of this case, the said observation would be applicable. The CGST Authorities and SGST Authorities to consider the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
