https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775877 The HC quashed the impugned adjudication order demanding GST from the petitioner on 100% of the property under an unregistered Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The court held that the Developer, a registered person, had already discharged the entire GST liability, including the petitioner's 30% share, preventing double taxation. The court rejected the respondent's contention that the unregistered JDA exempted the petitioner from GST liability, noting that the Deputy Commissioner had previously accepted the JDA and the Developer's GST payment. Consequently, the respondent was estopped from taking a contrary position. The orders dated 28.12.2023 and 30.12.2023 were set aside, and the petition was allowed. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:50:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775877 The HC quashed the impugned adjudication order demanding GST from the petitioner on 100% of the property under an unregistered Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The court held that the Developer, a registered person, had already discharged the entire GST liability, including the petitioner's 30% share, preventing double taxation. The court rejected the respondent's contention that the unregistered JDA exempted the petitioner from GST liability, noting that the Deputy Commissioner had previously accepted the JDA and the Developer's GST payment. Consequently, the respondent was estopped from taking a contrary position. The orders dated 28.12.2023 and 30.12.2023 were set aside, and the petition was allowed. Case-Laws GST Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775877