Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (3) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... proposed rejection of the petitioner s application on the premise that the lease of the property was required to be considered as supply of the services and the same were required to be valued in terms of Section 15 of the CGST Act. The Adjudicating Authority had reasoned that there was no specific exclusion under Section 15 of the CGST Act from the value of the supply in respect of non-recovery of payments of bad debts . Thus, according to the Adjudicating Authority, the fact that the petitioner had not recovered the lease rentals on which GST had been paid, it did not entitle it to any refund because a liability to pay GST would not stand extinguished on that ground. It is clear that the Appellate Authority had granted sufficient opportun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sposed off. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Ms. Vasudha Sen, Mr. Vineet Wadhwa Ms. Nikita Sethi, Advs. For the Respondent : Ms. Anushree Narain Mr. Mayank Srivastava, Advs. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning an Order-in-Appeal No. 345/2021-2022, dated 31.03.2022 (hereafter the impugned order ) passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals-II, New Delhi (hereafter the Appellate Authority ). By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order-in-original dated 06.04.2021, whereby the petitioner s application for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee of creditors at its meeting held on 20.03.2018. The resolution plan was also approved by the National Company Law Tribunal by its order dated 15.05.2018. 6. The petitioner states that since the lease rentals were not being paid, it was compelled to sell the property to pay the dues of the bank. The property was sold on 12.09.2018. 7. On 18.11.2020, the petitioner filed a Refund Application under Section 54 of the CGST Act (ARN No. AA07112009694H) before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Commissionerate, South Delhi (hereafter the Adjudicating Authority ) seeking refund of GST paid on lease rentals on account of assessment/provisional assessment/appeal/any other order for the period of 01.07.2017 to 30.07.2018. 8 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d to be valued in terms of Section 15 of the CGST Act. The Adjudicating Authority had reasoned that there was no specific exclusion under Section 15 of the CGST Act from the value of the supply in respect of non-recovery of payments of bad debts . Thus, according to the Adjudicating Authority, the fact that the petitioner had not recovered the lease rentals on which GST had been paid, it did not entitle it to any refund because a liability to pay GST would not stand extinguished on that ground. 14. The Adjudicating Authority passed the order dated 06.04.2021 adjudicating the petitioner s application on the lines as proposed in the SCN. The relevant extract of the said order setting out the reason for the same reads as under: 12. From the ab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of deferring it for a period of thirty days; the hearing was adjourned to 24.03.2022. The petitioner s advocate, once again, requested for an adjournment but the said request was not accepted. 16. It is clear from the above that the Appellate Authority had granted sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner but the petitioner had failed to avail the same. The assumption that the Appellate Authority was bound to accede to repeated request for adjournment is erroneous. The contention that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice is bereft of any merit. 17. The key question to be addressed is whether the petitioner was liable to pay GST in respect of the lease of the property in view of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates