Mazgaon Dock Shree Ganesh Chsg Soc LTD. The Its Secretary Rajgopal Mallya 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 requests to the tax authorities, which were not formal refund applications under Section 54, had not been considered.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petitions based on the Petitioners' stated intention to apply for a refund under 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 tax authorities must communicate their decision to the Petitioners in accordance with the law within six weeks from the date of the applications. This decision is subject to any earlier time-bound commitments. The Court did not definitively rule on the Petitioners' entitlement to a refund under Section 54, leaving that determination to the tax authorities upon receiving a formal application. The Court's primary action was to facilitate the process for the Petitioners to seek a refund through the prescribed statutory mechanism.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim a refund of GST paid on leasehold premium under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as persons other than the supplier? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioners argued that Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, allows any person claiming a refund of tax to apply. They specifically relied on clause 2(g) of the second Explanation to Section 54, which defines the 'relevant date' for persons other than suppliers, indicating their eligibility to claim a refund. They asserted that their requests to CIDCO, with copies marked to tax authorities, should have been considered, and even if not, they could now invoke Section 54 directly. Revenue's Arguments: The Respondents-Tax Authorities contended that the Petitioners might not be entitled to apply directly under Section 54 of the Act. However, they conceded that it was for the Petitioners to make such an application, and the authorities would then deal with it as per the law.