2026-VIL-245-GSTAT-DHR
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-245-GSTAT-DHR

SGST Tribunal

GST - Refund of tax paid on cancelled booking of flat - Limitation for refund claim filed by unregistered buyer under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 – Appellant booked a flat in a residential project under a tripartite agreement with a construction-linked payment plan and paid the basic value along with CGST and SGST, which the developer deposited with the Government - On cancellation of the agreement the developer refunded the amount paid except the GST, since the time limit for issuing a credit note under Section 34 had lapsed - Appellant filed the refund claim, which was rejected as time barred by the adjudicating authority and the FAA - Whether the refund claim filed on 09.03.2023 was barred by limitation - HELD - Prior to cancellation the agreement was subsisting, so no cause of action accrued to the Appellant to seek refund of the GST before that date. The Circular No. 188/20/2022-GST, dated 27.12.2022, could not have been complied with before it was issued, it nowhere provides for retrospective application and it cannot be operated retrospectively to prejudice the rights of the Appellant, who acted vigilantly and promptly in pursuing her claim through the CM Helpline - Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax, deemed to be in force from 01.03.2020, excludes the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computation of limitation for filing refund application under Section 54 or Section 55. After excluding that period, the claim was filed within the two year period prescribed, and both authorities below failed to consider the legal implications of the Notification, causing manifest injustice to the Appellant - The refund claim is held not barred by limitation - Admissibility of refund of GST borne by buyer of flat on cancellation of agreement, unjust enrichment and interest - Appellant had borne the CGST and SGST deposited by the developer with the Government, and the developer on cancellation refunded the amount paid except the GST - Whether the refund is admissible on merits, whether it is hit by unjust enrichment and whether interest is payable - HELD - The ledger account of the Appellant maintained by the developer shows that GST was paid, the information required in Statement 8 is on record, and all substantive conditions of Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules stand satisfied. It is admitted that the developer deposited the full amount of tax and that the tax was borne by the Appellant. The CBIC Circular dated 27.12.2022, which lays down the manner of filing refund claims by buyers of flats in similar circumstances, squarely applies since the Appellant bore the incidence of tax, and it is binding on the Department and its officers. The Appellant being a buyer of a residential flat and the ultimate consumer, there is no question of unjust enrichment - The order of the adjudicating authority and the order of the FAA are set aside, the appeal is allowed.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

57th GST Council Decisions...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?