Reliance Capital Limited vs. M/S. Varaha Infra Limited & Ors.
Held
The Court issued notice on the interim application, with the petitioner accepting notice and seeking time to file a reply within four weeks. The Court also directed that notice be served to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 through their counsel, with the matter to be listed on 07.05.2018. The applicant's counsel highlighted the petitioner's alleged liability for GST due to a substitution agreement and the fact that maintenance charges from November 2017 onwards are being paid by respondent No.3. No decision on the merits of the GST liability or the substitution agreement was made in this order, as it was primarily procedural, focusing on the issuance of notice and the timeline for filing a reply.
Facts
This order pertains to an interim application (I.A.No.2740/2018) filed in a larger proceeding (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 110/2017) before the Delhi High Court. The petitioner, Reliance Capital Limited, is seeking directions regarding certain payments. The applicant, representing respondent No.1 (Aria Hotels and Consultancy Services Private Ltd), argued that respondent No.1 has been paying GST on liabilities arising from a deposit made with the petitioner. Due to a substitution agreement approved by the court, the petitioner is now allegedly liable to pay this GST. The applicant also stated that maintenance charges from November 2017 onwards are being paid by respondent No.3 and are therefore not being pressed by the applicant. The court issued notice, with the petitioner's counsel accepting notice and seeking time to file a reply.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner, Reliance Capital Limited, is liable to pay GST arising from a deposit made with it, considering a substitution agreement approved by the Court? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning contractual obligations and tax liability). Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant (through counsel): Argued that respondent No.1 has been paying GST on liabilities stemming from a deposit with the petitioner. Following a substitution agreement sanctioned by the Court, the petitioner is now obligated to pay this GST. Additionally, maintenance charges from November 2017 onwards are being paid by respondent No.3 and are not being pressed. Revenue/State: No arguments recorded for the Revenue or State in this specific order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 06.03.2018 I.A.No.2740/2018 Notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner accepts notice and seeks time to file a reply. Reply be filed within four weeks from today. Notice be also served to respondent Nos.1 and 3 through counsel returnable for 07.05.2018. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has stressed that respondent No.1 has been paying the GST on account of the liability arising out of the deposit made with the applicant and that in view of the substitution agreement between the parties which was approved by this court, the petitioner now becomes liable to pay the same. He also submits that he does not press the maintenance charges w.e.f. November, 2017 as the same are being paid by respondent No.
JAYANT NAT
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.