https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450134 The dominant issue was whether the lessee was liable to discharge GST on services rendered by airport authorities despite claiming entitlement to input tax credit/refund on goods. The HC reasoned that withholding payments pursuant to interim orders did not extinguish the substantive obligation to pay GST on services: statutory liability and the concession agreement oblige the lessee to remit tax to the service providers and then seek ITC or refund from the Union/authorities. The HC further held interest accrues on withheld sums under the interim order. Consequently, the lessee was directed to reimburse Rs. 3,83,38,993 to the airport authorities within four weeks with interest. en-us Thu, 25 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jan 2026 15:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450134 The dominant issue was whether the lessee was liable to discharge GST on services rendered by airport authorities despite claiming entitlement to input tax credit/refund on goods. The HC reasoned that withholding payments pursuant to interim orders did not extinguish the substantive obligation to pay GST on services: statutory liability and the concession agreement oblige the lessee to remit tax to the service providers and then seek ITC or refund from the Union/authorities. The HC further held interest accrues on withheld sums under the interim order. Consequently, the lessee was directed to reimburse Rs. 3,83,38,993 to the airport authorities within four weeks with interest. Case-Laws GST Thu, 25 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450134