Live Help
Your Session Will Expire in   seconds.
If you do not wish to log-out, choose 'Let me continue'
Reset SessionCancel Session
 

Question of GST payment on disputed amount does not came under authority of AAR

October 8, 2018[2018] 98 taxmann.com 140 (AAR - GUJARAT)
101 Views

CGST : Issue as to 'whether GST is to be paid on disputed claims' and issue of 'refund claim' in case of conclusion of dispute are not covered by Section 97(2)

Section 97(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Issue as to 'whether GST is to be paid on disputed claims' and issue of 'refund claim' in case of conclusion of dispute are not covered by Section 97(2)

• The applicant was set up under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. It had submitted that it owns substantial amount of land which had been given on lease to various commercial and other organization for long time period, for which it had entered into lease agreements with various lessees long ago. The applicant submitted that it revised rate of lease as per directions of Tariff Authority of Major Port, however, many lease holders have challenged the revised rate taking plea that it was against the terms of lease agreement. It was further submitted that some of the lessees were Government of India undertaking and the matter was under litigation at various jurisdictional level. It was also submitted that the applicant is paying GST as per invoices (revised rate) issued out of pocket, though no payment of lease rent and GST was being made by lease holders for disputed amount.

• The applicant had raised questions for advance ruling as to (i) Whether DPT shall continue to pay GST on disputed claim? (ii) How is it possible for DPT to claim refund for GST paid out of pocket, if the matter / dispute concluded in favour of party / lease holder, considering the fact that it may conclude after period of 2 or more years?

• The issues raised by the applicant did not fall in the category of Section 97(2). Whether the applicant shall continue to pay GST on disputed claims did not require determination of any issue enumerated under Section 97(2). Further, the issue of refund claim in case of conclusion of dispute after more than 2 years was also not covered by Section 97(2). Therefore, application for advance ruling was to be rejected without going into the merits of the case, on the issue of lack of jurisdiction, at the stage of admission.

read more

taxmann.com
Payment
Best view in 1140 x 768