TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from the date of the said order. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under: 2.1. M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Developer'), a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and engaged in the business of development and construction of inter alia residential projects as well as projects for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, launched a group housing project (hereinafter referred to as 'the project') titled 'Parsvnath Paramount' at Subhash Nagar (near Subhash Nagar Metro Station), New Delhi in the year 2008 and widely publicized the same. 2.2. Upon gaining knowledge of the project, the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paid a total sum of Rs.1,30,62,971/- in the intervening period between 15th July, 2008 and 21st December, 2013, as per the demand of the respondent-Developer. The aforesaid amount deposited by the complainants-appellants amounted to about 95% of the total sale price of the flat. 2.5. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Developer unilaterally transferred the said Flat No. 301 situated in Tower 3, which had been initially allotted to the complainants-appellants, to Flat No. 702 situated in Tower 2, admeasuring 1942 sq. ft., in April, 2011. 2.6. Subsequently, the respondent-Developer raised a demand for the payment of VAT amounting to Rs. 60,141/- which was duly paid by the complainants-appellants on 29th January, 2014. A second payment of an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts-appellants would be informed about the tentative date for making an offer of possession, thereafter. So far as the compensation claimed for was concerned, the same was to be governed by the terms and conditions laid down in the Agreement. However, the respondent-Developer failed to directly address the specific queries that had been raised by the complainants-appellants. 2.11. Subsequently, the complainants-appellants addressed two further letters to the respondent-Developer on 28th October, 2015 and 6th January, 2016, respectively, once again raising queries as to when the construction would be completed and the possession would be handed over to them, whether the construction would be completed at all and the manner in which the compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as fully tilted in favour of the respondent- Developer. The Agreement provided that, in case of delay in completion of the project by the respondent-Developer, it was liable to pay interest only at the rate of 12% per annum. It is submitted that there is no logic in making the flat purchaser liable for payment of interest at the rate of 24% per annum whereas the respondent-Developer was liable to pay interest only at the rate of 12% per annum. 6. Shri Jain therefore submitted that, applying the principle of parity, the learned Commission ought to have awarded the interest at the rate of 24% per annum. It is submitted that, in any case the interest at the rate of only 9% per annum is not sustainable in law. 7. Per contra, Shri Jayant Muth ....