2025 (10) TMI 1117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Legal,. For the Respondent No. 2: Mr Ram Ochani, with Mr Abhishek R Mishra,. For the Respondent-State: Mr Himanshu Takke, AGP,. For the Respondent No. 4: Ms Darshana Gangar,. PC:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Primarily, this seems to be a dispute between the Petitioner and the developer (R4). However, considering the concern expressed by Mr Thakker about the Petit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt to the tax authorities under protest and without prejudice and then demand an adjudication. If, in the adjudication, it is found that no such GST was payable, then the developer must return this amount to the Petitioner. 5. Mr Thakker, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that the above proposal is necessary because, otherwise, the possession of the alternate accommodation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt to the GST authorities, the same must be without prejudice and subject to adjudication by the GST authorities. If the GST authorities finally hold that this amount was not payable, then the developer must return this amount to the Petitioner. This is agreed to by the developer (R4), and a statement is made to this effect. Even this statement is accepted. 9. Nothing in this order decides whe....