9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the respondent no.1 and order dated 15.12.2023 passed by respondent no.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the head (karta) of the Hindu Undivided Family, whose family is in possession and ownership of building situates at F-16, Sector-18, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar. The said property is a commercial four-storey building and as such the petitioner is in the business of renting out the said property. The rent received from the said property, is taxable under the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and therefore, the petitioner has filed its return. The petitioner, being a law abiding person, has paid one time lease rent amounting to Rs. 97,18,500/- to the New Okhla Development Authority (hereinafter refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereby tax has again been imposed upon the petitioner of equal amount along with penalty of Rs. 19,22,778/-. He further submits that the amount of tax and penalty imposed by the impugned order upon the petitioner may be directed to be paid/compensated by the NOIDA to the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order by submitting that the proceedings were rightly initiated against the petitioner as engaged in renting out the commercial building, over which goods and services tax are liable to be paid/deposit, but the same was not deposited. 7. The counsel appearing for the NOIDA admits that the amount was received towards from the petitioner towards the GST payment, but the same was deposited under some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at time, the Authority could have filed the rectification application. But, this fact went unnoticed and resultantly the same could not be rectified in time. 5. That on 18.10.2017, the Respondent Noida Authority deposited the aforesaid payment of GST at 18% amounting to Rs. 17,49,330/- with the State GST Authorities and as such filed its return in Form GSTR-3B dated 18.10.2017 for the Month of September F.Y. 2017-18. Copy of the Return filed by the Noida Authority dated 18.10.2017 for the Month of September F.Y. 2017-18 is filed herewith as ANNEXURE No. SA2. 6. That the Noida Authority vide its return filed in Form GSTR 3B dated 18.10.2017 for the Month of September F.Y. 2017-18 deposited Rs. 14,10,21,036/- towards CGST and Rs. 14,10,21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he peculiar facts and circumstances, the Court is of the view that the petitioner must be compensated by NOIDA. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited an Another, (2024) 2 Supreme Court cases 375, has held that computation of compensation should not be whimsical and absurd resulting in a windfall and bounty for one party at the expense of the other and the damages should be commensurate with the loss sustained by the party. 16. Since the quantification against the petitioner along with penalty has been made of Rs. 19,22,778/-, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority, a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
