https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780321 HC directed that after the petitioner tendered Rs. 6,44,945 by pay order to the respondent-developer, the developer may decide whether to remit that sum to GST authorities but only without prejudice and subject to final adjudication; if GST is ultimately held not payable the developer must refund the amount to the petitioner. The court did not decide the legal question of GST liability. The developer acknowledged receipt and agreed to hand over possession of the alternate accommodation on an ownership basis. Petition disposed. en-us Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780321 HC directed that after the petitioner tendered Rs. 6,44,945 by pay order to the respondent-developer, the developer may decide whether to remit that sum to GST authorities but only without prejudice and subject to final adjudication; if GST is ultimately held not payable the developer must refund the amount to the petitioner. The court did not decide the legal question of GST liability. The developer acknowledged receipt and agreed to hand over possession of the alternate accommodation on an ownership basis. Petition disposed. Case-Laws GST Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780321