Wg.Cdr.(Retd) Amarjit Singh Panjarth vs. Chandigarh Housing Board And Anr

Held

The Court held that the objection raised by the Chandigarh Housing Board regarding the expiry of the last date for deposit was not impressive, given that the matter was pending before the Court and the petitioner had been seeking permission to pay the balance amount, with the Court having passed orders to this effect on 16.01.2017 and 02.03.2017. Therefore, even if the petitioner deposited the amount after 30.09.2017, it should be treated as made under the Scheme. Regarding the GST liability, the Court found that the petitioner was indeed liable to pay GST on the outstanding amount. The Court directed that the GST amount be conveyed to the petitioner, who would deposit it within two weeks of receiving the communication. Upon such deposit, a formal order for the restoration of the apartment was to be issued within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Wing Cdr.(Retd.) Amarjit Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.07.2000 passed by the Development Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB). This order cancelled the allotment of Dwelling Unit No.1062, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh, and forfeited the entire amount deposited by the petitioner. The CHB contended that the petitioner deposited the balance amount in July 2018, after the last date for deposit, which was 30.09.2017. The CHB also stated that the petitioner was liable to pay GST on the outstanding amount paid in July 2018. The matter had been pending before the High Court, with the petitioner seeking permission to pay the balance amount, even subject to penal charges, and the Court had passed orders on 16.01.2017 and 02.03.2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's deposit of the balance amount after the stipulated last date (30.09.2017) should be treated as made under the Scheme, considering the pendency of the matter before the Court and previous orders allowing payment subject to charges. 2. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the outstanding amount paid after the last date. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in payment was due to the matter being pending before the Court and that previous orders had permitted payment even after the due date. The petitioner sought the quashing of the cancellation order and forfeiture. Respondents' (Chandigarh Housing Board) Arguments: The CHB contended that the last date for deposit was 30.09.2017, and the petitioner deposited the balance amount in July 2018, which was after the due date. The CHB also raised the issue of the petitioner's liability to pay GST on the delayed payment.