TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al estate development, and by the petition filed in the year 2022, it has raised a challenge to the Notification dated 01.07.2017 (corrected by Corrigendum dated 29.07.2019), seeking relief of quashing and setting aside of Notification dated 01.07.2017 as well as quashing of the summons dated 02.12.2021. 2. On the petition being heard on 23.08.2022, a Rule was issued and the parties were given liberty to complete the pleadings. The order also record the statement of Ms Desai that no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner, with clarification that the show cause notice will be issued. 3. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr Raghuraman for the petitioner and Ms Desai for the respondents. Upon the pleadings being completed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice and it contemplate passing of the order under sub-section (9) by the proper officer, determining the amount of tax, interest and penalty as specified therein, to be issued within three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year in which he faces an allegation that the tax is not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized relates to or within three years from the date of erroneous refund. As far as Section 74 is concerned, sub-section (10), has specified the timeline to be within a period of five years from the due date for furnishing of annual return in place of three years as specified in Section 73. 6. Our attention is also invited to Section 75, which is general provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to be passed should be not later than 07.02.2025. It is therefore the contention of the petitioner that even till date no notice has been issued and therefore, it is specific case of the petitioner, that as per Section 75 sub-section (10), the adjudication proceedings shall be deemed to be concluded, as per the sub -section (10) of Section 73 or sub-section (10) of Section 74 is not yet resorted to. Our attention is also invited to the specific stand adopted in the two affidavits filed by the Revenue, where the relief sought by the petitioner including the amended petition is opposed on the ground that in view of Section 13(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, the time of supply of services is the date of JDA i.e. 13.10.2017 and no tax invoice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, stated that the Notification is effective from the date of its publication i.e. from 25.01.2018 and in the present case, since JDA agreement was signed on 13.10.2017, which is the date prior to 25.01.2018, as the time of supply as envisaged in the said Notification is not available to the petitioner and the GST liability on the petitioner fell on the date of agreement of JDA. 9. However, in the recent affidavit filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Goa Regional Unit, Mr Shibi Singh Gaharwar, a diametrically opposite stand is adopted, as in Para 4, the affidavit state thus: - "4. Further, I say that subsequent thereto, the Central Government issued Notification No.4/2018-Central Tax (Rate), date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and adopted by the Revenue, deserved to be overlooked. 11. Another important aspect which must take note of is that the landowner i.e. M/s Trinitas Realtors India LLP, has sold the entire land, which was made over for development to the petitioner and as per the arrangement between the parties, both the parties shall not claim any right or liability under the JDA and the deed of sale clearly record thus: - "(g). The Parties (The Vendor and the Purchaser) hereby declare and confirm that the Parties do not have any claims/demands under the Joint Development Agreement dated 13.10.2017 and Allocation Agreement dated 23.10.2017 against each other. The said Joint Development Agreement and the Allocation Agreement henceforth shall not have any ....