9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioners have prayed for the following prayers:- "(a) Direct the respondents to process the refund applications filed by the petitioners by invoking the powers conferred under Section 151 of the CGST Act to obtain the necessary documents, including invoices or receipts, from the promoter, in line with the principles laid down in Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt v. Union of India. (b) Quash and set aside the deficiency memos dated 03.01.2025, 18.12.2024, 28.11.2024, 01.02.2025 issued by the respondents requiring compliance with Circular No. 188/20/2022-GST, as the said circular cannot override the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court regarding the non-mandatory nature of artificial deeming fictions in GST valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4AASFA0420C1Z4 for sale of a Villa namely Onyx 28A, Type IBIS, Sector-Onyx-IV (Villa), admeasuring 261.33 sq.mtrs. for a total consideration of Rs. 3, 24, 17, 392/-. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioners that advance payment was made in accordance with the said agreement from time to time which also included the portion of The Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected by the promoter from such payments. 3.3 It is further case of the petitioners that the promoter did not issue the mandatory receipts bifurcating the portion of the tax from the total amount collected by it. The petitioners therefore, have referred to the agreement to sell which provides the value of land as well as the construction cost. It is also the case of the petitioners t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... medabad for claim of the refund allegedly collected by the promoter. 3.7 The respondent No. 4 issued the deficiency memo as the petitioners did not submit the invoices as required under Rule 89 (2) (k) of the Rules. 3.8. It is also the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have meanwhile raised the civil dispute with the promoter by moving RTI applications with various authorities including RERA for the amount of GST collected by the promoter. 3.9. In response to the complaint raised by the petitioners before the CPGRAM, the response was received confirming that the promoter had deposited the sums collected from the petitioners as GST by the communication dated 23.01.2025. 3.10 The petitioners therefore again filed the refund app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal position in case of Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt (supra), the petitioners are entitled to refund more particularly when it is admitted by the respondents in the reply to the RTI applications that the promoter has deposited the amount collected from the petitioners towards the GST with the Department. It was further submitted that the representations made by the petitioners are also not answered by the respondents. It was therefore prayed that the respondents may be directed to either give reply to the various representations made by the petitioners or to adjudicate upon the refund claims of the petitioners by passing appropriate order in Form GST RFD-06 so as to enable the petitioners to take legal recourse in accordance with law. 6 On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
