9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word apparent is that it must be something which appears to be so ex-facie that there cannot be any argument or debate in that regard. Thus, rectification of mistake does not envisage the rectification of an alleged error of judgment or a different interpretation. Since, it is not in dispute that the Appellant have collected execs tax from their customers, therefore, the Appellate Authority deemed it completely proper and legal that the said excess GST amount be refunded back to the customers from whom such excess amount have been collected by the Appellant. Such a ruling was made by the Appellate Authority in the interest of equity and justice of such customers from whom the Appellant had collected the said excess GST amount, thereby, seek to restore uniformity and parity among the flat buyers, irrespective of the residential projects and time. in which and during which, they are buying a or hate bought the residential apartments - it is crystal clear that there is no such error which is apparent from the face of record, which would warrant rectification under section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant would not he considered as consideration for construction services and hence, the same would not be classified under SAC 9954, and the same will be treated as consideration received against the supply of independent services of the respective heads. It was further observed by the MAAR that the said other service underlining the other charges would be as per SAC prescribed under Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, and are chargeable to 18% GST on the entire consideration received as Other Charges. 2.4 Aggrieved by the aforesaid MAAR Order, the Appellant had titled an appeal before the MAAAR wherein the MAAR vide the Order No. MAH/AAAR/DS-RM/19/22-23 dated 31.03.2023 partly set aside the impugned order, and observed as under: 2.4.1 The other charges, namely, water connection charges, electric meter installation charges and deposit for the meter, development Charges, and legal fees, which are inextricably linked to the supply of construction services of the residential apartments/units, thereby, forming parts of the bundled services, wherein the principal. supply will be the construction of residential apartments. Accordingly, the aforesaid other services wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er No. DC-E-005/Thane City/Puranik Builder/B-32 Thane dated 06.09.2023informed that as per taxpayer s submissions, it seems that the entire amount of tax collected from the buyers of the flats has been deposited by them to the Government exchequer within stipulated. timeline. In case, the taxpayer has collected the excess tax from their customers and the said tax has not been deposited to the Government treasury, then the taxpayer ought to refund the said excess amount of tax to then customers as per the ruling of MAAAR. Personal Hearing 4. The personal hearing in the subject matter was held on 19.04.2024 which was attended by Shri Gourav Sogani on behalf of the Appellant, and by Shri Shivaji P. Dhainje, Dy. Commissioner of State Tax as the, jurisdictional officer, Shri Sogani, the representative of the Appellant, inter alia, reiterated the earlier submissions made by the Appellant. 5. Consequent to the aforesaid personal hearing, the Appellant have filed an additional submission dated 30.04.2024, wherein while referring to the MAAAR proposal to file refund claim of the excess GST amount collected and deposited with the government exchequer, they have submitted that they would file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is regard, we would like to advert to the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Bros. 1(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)], wherein the Hon ble Apex Court. inter alia, has held as under: A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. 11. Another case law. which can he referred to for deriving the true and correct interpretation of the clause error apparent on the face of record used in section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017, is the decision of the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in the case of Dinkar Khindria v. CCE, New lend, 2000 (38) RLT 442; 2000 (118) E.L.T 77 (T-EB), wherein it has been held under: rectification of mistake is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an order even if it is not valid, is re-heard and re-decided. Rectification of mistake application lies only for patent mistake. Only in a case where the mistake stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a case for rectification of mistake could be made out. Larger Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both; (f) whether applicant is required to be registered. (g) whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of that term. 15. Thus, it is apparent that the aforesaid provisions are pertaining to the questions on which the advance ruling can be sought for by an applicant. The said provisions do not restrict the authority in any manner from giving their rulings on any facts presented before them. Having come forth with a question. they should be prepared for answers on that as well as connected matters. They cannot pick and choose what suits them. Since, it is not in dispute that the Appellant have collected execs tax from their customers, therefore, the Appellate Authority deemed it completely proper and legal that the said excess GST amount be refunded back to the customers from whom such excess amount have been collected by the Appellant. Such a ruling was made by the Appellate Authority in the interest of equity and justice of such customers from whom the Appellant had collected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
