2018 (5) TMI 1282 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 242 (All.) – Recovery of arrears of Land Revenue – Who is liable to discharge the GST laibility – Scope of mutual contract – Challenge raised is that it is not the liability of the petitioner and rather it is the Nagar Nigam that has benefited from the contract and therefore it is the Nagar Nigam which is liable to pay the G.S.T. realisable under the Act, 2017 – whether recovery could have proceeded against the petitioner or not?
–
Held that: – recovery of GST can be make as arrears of land revenue by the Collector of the District on a requisition by the “Proper Officer” – Section 79(2) of Act, 2017 further clarifies that where there are terms of agreement under any instrument for recovery of the tax under Section 79(1) of the Act, 2017, the same may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recovered in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section.
–
It is therefore, undisputed that there is a p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
i And Mr. Shashi Kant, JJ. For The Petitioner : Achint Ranjan Singh,Ramesh Singh For The Respondent : C.S.C., C. K. Parekh ORDER Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2-Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4. The petitioner who has entered into a contract upon an auction for realisation of ground rent from a Fair commencing from 31st August, 2017 for a month, has assailed the recovery certificate issued to him for deposit of Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter referred to as "G.S.T.") from the petitioner in terms of U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2017"). Recovery is being made as arrears of land revenue through the Collector/District Magistrate, Saharanpur for which a citation has been issued by the fourth respondent-Tehsildar, Saharanpur. The amount sought to be recovered mentioned in the citation is
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
mits that the tax payable is over and above the amount of consideration under the contract and hence, recovery has been rightly issued against the petitioner. The contention therefore is that even assuming that the Nagar Nigam ought to have deducted the said amount, but the fact in this case is that the entire security amount which has been deposited by the petitioner in terms of the contract has been adjusted towards the amount of consideration under the contract as a result whereof payment of G.S.T. remains over due. Sri Parekh has also informed the Court that as on date after making adjustment from the amount already due to the petitioner, it is only the G.S.T. to the tune of ₹ 3,24,000/- which is now to be realised from the petitioner. In essence, his contention is that the entire amount shown in the citation is not recoverable now, except to the amount of G.S.T. His contention therefore, is that liability of the petitioner as disclosed in the citation was of the entire amoun
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Constitution of India read with sub Article 12A read with Article 26A. The Act, 2017 defines the word "local authority" under Section 2(69) of Act, 2017 which includes Municipal Corporations constituted in terms of Article 243 (P) of the Constitution of India. The respondent Nagar Nigam is an authority so constituted. Section 2(91) defines 'Proper Officer' who is the Commissioner of the Taxing Department or an officer nominated by him to discharge such functions. Section 7(1a) and Section 7(2b) of Act, 2017 defines the scope of supply under Chapter III of Levy and Collection of Taxes. There is no dispute that the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent Nagar Nigam falls within the scope of such 'supply'. The only dispute is to the mode and manner of recovery of G.S.T. for which Sri Parekh has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 79 of the Act, 2017. In particular he has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 79(a), (b) and (e), to co
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
agreement exists. Sri Parekh has then invited attention of the Court to Rule 143 of Chapter 18 of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2017") which indicates the manner in which the deductions by the "Specified Officer" have to be made and according to said definition it would include the Officer of a "Local Authority". The aforesaid Rules therefore obligates the Specified Officer of the Nagar Nigam to make such deductions. The aforesaid scheme as indicated above thus, obligates the Specified Officer to make deductions and in the event of default the Proper Officer of the Taxing Department can proceed to issue certificate on the strength whereof the Collector can issue a recovery citation for realisation of the tax due as arrears of land revenue. In the present case it is undisputed that the procedure for deducting the amount has not been followed by the Nagar Nigam in terms of Rule 143 of Rules, 2017. In such cir
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =