The Allahabad High Court has stayed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand of Rs. 1,081 crores against Paytm."The amount of tax due on the transaction has already been paid, and the only dispute is whether it is to be treated as an intra-state sale or an inter-state sale; recovery of the demand raised shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing," the division bench headed by Chief...
The Allahabad High Court has stayed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand of Rs. 1,081 crores against Paytm.
"The amount of tax due on the transaction has already been paid, and the only dispute is whether it is to be treated as an intra-state sale or an inter-state sale; recovery of the demand raised shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing," the division bench headed by Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J.J. Munir said while listing the matter for hearing on April 27, 2022.
The petitioner/assessee raised the issue of whether the supply of mobile recharge coupons and Direct To Home (DTH) recharge vouchers to recipients who are located in other states would be an interstate or intrastate supply.
The petitioner claimed that the tax was paid in the state of U.P., classifying it as an interstate supply. However, the state attempted to raise demand by claiming it was an intra-state supply.
In terms of Section 19 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if any amount of tax is wrongly paid, it can be adjusted, and in terms of Section 77 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, no interest is payable for the transaction.
The petitioner made representations to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on September 7, 2017, which are still pending.
The department contended that the representations made by the petitioner should be considered and appropriate directions should be issued thereon by the Board within three months.
The matter will now be heard on April 27, 2023.
Case Title: One 97 Communications Limited Versus UOI
Citation: Writ Tax No. 1606 of 2022
Date: 06.01.2023
Counsel For Appellant: Senior Advocate Tarun Gulati, with Advocate Nishant Mishra
Counsel For Respondent: Advocates Sudarshan Singh, Anant Kumar Tiwari, Ankur Agarwal, Dhananjay Awasthi