Mazagaon Dock Vipul Co Op Hsg Society LTD. Thr Its Chairman vs. The Union Of INDIA Thr The Revenue Secretary And Ors

Facts

The petitioners, co-operative housing societies, paid GST on leasehold premium to CIDCO Limited. They contend they were not liable for this GST and requested CIDCO to apply for a refund. The petitioners made communications to CIDCO on August 18, 2020, and August 16, 2021, urging them to seek a refund. As CIDCO had not applied for the refund, the petitioners filed these writ petitions. The petitioners also argued that they could seek a refund directly under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as persons other than suppliers. However, their grievance was that this request had not been considered by the Tax Authorities, as their communications were primarily addressed to CIDCO, with only copies marked to the tax authorities. The petitioners had not formally invoked Section 54 for a refund.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petitions based on the Petitioners' stated intention to apply for a refund directly to the Respondent-Tax Authorities by invoking Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court directed that if the Petitioners submit their applications within four weeks from the date of the order, the concerned authorities must communicate their decision to the Petitioners in accordance with the law within a period of six weeks from the date of application, subject to any earlier time-bound commitments. The Court did not definitively rule on whether the Petitioners were initially entitled to apply under Section 54, but rather facilitated the process for them to do so. The core reasoning was to allow the statutory mechanism under Section 54 to be pursued by the Petitioners.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim a refund of GST paid on leasehold premium directly from the Tax Authorities under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly considering the second Explanation to clause 2(g) thereof, which deals with the relevant date for persons other than suppliers? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioners argued that Section 54 of the Act allows any person claiming a refund of tax to do so. They specifically relied on the provisions of the second Explanation to clause 2(g) of Section 54, which provides a starting period for limitation for persons other than suppliers, implying their right to claim refund. They contended that their requests to CIDCO, with copies to Tax Authorities, should have been considered. Revenue's Arguments: The Respondents-Tax Authorities contended that the Petitioners may not be entitled to apply directly under Section 54 of the Act. However, they acknowledged that it is for the Petitioners to make the application and for the authorities to deal with it as per law.