Taxpayer Seeks GST Refund After Land Lease Agreement Provided Less Area Than Contracted

The HC heard a writ petition regarding refund of GST amounts deposited by DMRC on behalf of the petitioner. The dispute arose from a land lease agreement where the actual land provided was less than contracted. While DMRC returned excess premium, the tax amount remained with revenue authorities. The petitioner argued no taxable supply occurred for the unused land portion. The court ordered DMRC to be added as respondent no.3 since they were integral to the dispute. The petitioner was directed to file amended documents within a week, and notices were issued to all parties. The case was scheduled for further hearing on 03.08.2022.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Refund of amount deposited by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) on behalf of the petitioner under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner approached the court through a writ petition since the Appellate Tribunal under the CGST Act, 2017/DGST Act, 2017 was not in place.

2. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, was aggrieved by the non-refund of the amount deposited by DMRC with the revenue authorities on its behalf.

3. The amount deposited by DMRC was claimed to be non-tax in nature and should be refunded to the petitioner.

4. The grievance arose due to a land lease agreement between the petitioner and DMRC for a parcel of land, where the actual land area provided was less than initially intended.

5. The petitioner contended that no supply under the CGST Act/DGST Act took place for the excess land area not utilized.

6. While the excess premium was returned by DMRC, the amount deposited towards tax remained with the revenue authorities, leading to the petitioner's dissatisfaction.

7. The court noted that DMRC should have been made a party to the proceedings, considering its involvement in the matter based on the impugned order.

8. Consequently, DMRC was included as respondent no.3 in the case, and Mr. Bhatia was directed to file an amended memo of parties within a week.

9. Notice was issued to respondent nos.1 and 2, along with the newly added party, respondent no.3/DMRC, through various modes, including email.

10. The case was scheduled for the next hearing on 03.08.2022 to further address the issues raised regarding the refund of the deposited amount by DMRC on behalf of the petitioner.

---