GST refund after flat cancellation upheld where credit-note period had expired and refund mechanism remained available.

Where cancellation of an apartment occurred after the period for issuing a GST credit note had expired, the promoter could not refuse refund merely on that ground. The Court noted that the agreement did not expressly allocate GST loss to the allottee and that the promoter had not proved double payment of GST for the same flat. It also accepted that, under the GST refund mechanism, an unregistered buyer whose contract was cancelled after the credit-note period could seek refund, and that the allottee had undertaken to repay the promoter once the GST refund was received. On those facts, the tribunal's order allowing withdrawal of the pre-deposit and declining interference with the regulatory authority was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the promoter was entitled to deny refund of GST on cancellation of the flat on the ground of the statutory time limit for issuance of credit note, and whether the allottee could be permitted to pursue refund under the GST refund mechanism while withdrawing the pre-deposit before the appellate tribunal.

Analysis: The cancellation of the apartment took place after the period for issuing a credit note had expired, and the agreement did not specifically provide for deduction of GST loss. The Court held that the promoter had not produced proof that GST had been paid twice for the same apartment. It further noted that the statutory scheme under the GST law permitted an unregistered buyer, whose contract stood cancelled after the credit-note period, to seek refund under the prescribed refund mechanism. The allottee had also furnished an undertaking before the appellate tribunal to refund the recovered amount to the promoter upon receipt of the GST refund. On these facts, the appellate tribunal's order permitting withdrawal of the pre-deposit and the refusal to interfere with the regulatory authority's order were found justified.

Conclusion: The challenge to the tribunal's order failed. The promoter was not entitled to relief against the refund mechanism adopted for GST, and the allottee's withdrawal of the pre-deposit was upheld.

---