Appellant had absolutely no justification in not paying the remaining GST and interest.
Section 13 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Time of Supply –-- The petitioner, engaged in the business of real estate development, claimed it invested Rs. 15 crores in shanklesha constructions’ development project (the respondent) under an undated MOU. The petitioner submitted it is entitled to 44 flats in all. The petitioner invoked arbitration and filed Arbitration Petition. On 15th July 2019, the court held some ad-interim protection in favour of the petitioner. The respondent sought a recall or modification on the said order and the petitioner sought a review of the same. The court observed that it is to be decided that whether the petitioner is correct in saying it has no GST liability in respect of the balance payment it has made to respondent for the purchase of flats. The court observed that Section 13(2) uses word ‘earliest’, is clearly to peg the ‘time of supply of services’ to the logically earliest possible date, when the service was provided or when the payment was received in Section 13(2)(b); and, if a question of date of payment arises, then the earlier of the entry in the books of account or date of receipt of payment. The respondent’s entry in its books is after the date of receipt of payment. The earlier of the two must apply. The court observed that the petitioner had no justification in not paying the remaining GST and interest.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Review Petition of the petitioner and allowed the Interim Application of the respondent.
Appellant had absolutely no justification in not paying the remaining GST and interest.
Section 13 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Time of Supply –-- The petitioner, engaged in the business of real estate development, claimed it invested Rs. 15 crores in shanklesha constructions’ development project (the respondent) under an undated MOU. The petitioner submitted it is entitled to 44 flats in all. The petitioner invoked arbitration and filed Arbitration Petition. On 15th July 2019, the court held some ad-interim protection in favour of the petitioner. The respondent sought a recall or modification on the said order and the petitioner sought a review of the same. The court observed that it is to be decided that whether the petitioner is correct in saying it has no GST liability in respect of the balance payment it has made to respondent for the purchase of flats. The court observed that Section 13(2) uses word ‘earliest’, is clearly to peg the ‘time of supply of services’ to the logically earliest possible date, when the service was provided or when the payment was received in Section 13(2)(b); and, if a question of date of payment arises, then the earlier of the entry in the books of account or date of receipt of payment. The respondent’s entry in its books is after the date of receipt of payment. The earlier of the two must apply. The court observed that the petitioner had no justification in not paying the remaining GST and interest.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Review Petition of the petitioner and allowed the Interim Application of the respondent.