GST Imposed under Wrong Head: Allahabad HC Directs NOIDA to reimbruse Penalty Imposed u/s 73 of GST Act [Read Order]
The bench had found that NOIDA had acknowledged its error in failing to deposit the petitioner's tax under the incorrect heading
![GST Imposed under Wrong Head: Allahabad HC Directs NOIDA to reimbruse Penalty Imposed u/s 73 of GST Act [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/GST-GST-Imposed-Under-Wrong-Head-Allahabad-HC-NOIDA-taxscan.jpg "GST Imposed under Wrong Head: Allahabad HC Directs NOIDA to reimbruse Penalty Imposed u/s 73 of GST Act [Read Order]")
The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) was recently directed by the Allahabad High Court to reimburse the assesee the amount that was assessed as a tax and penalty in proceedings under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The decision was based on the finding that the GST was imposed under the wrong head. The petitioner, Surender Gupta, rented out his Gautam...
The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) was recently directed by the Allahabad High Court to reimburse the assesee the amount that was assessed as a tax and penalty in proceedings under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The decision was based on the finding that the GST was imposed under the wrong head.
The petitioner, Surender Gupta, rented out his Gautam Budh Nagar (Noida) house. According to the GST Act, the rent received from the property was taxable. The petitioner properly paid the tax of Rs. 17,49,330 and the one-time leasing rent of Rs. 97,18,500 to NOIDA. According to the petitioner, he filed his return in accordance with Section 39 of the GST Act. Due to an error on NOIDA's side, the petitioner's tax deposit did not appear on the GSTR-3B form.
Worried About SME IPO Pitfalls? Gain Clarity with This Advanced Course! Register Now
The petitioner contended that tax and penalties were imposed despite the fact that he provided proof of tax deposit in procedures under Section 73 of the Act. It was contended that in rejecting the petitioner's appeal, the appellate body also ignored the evidence presented. The petitioner contended that he could not be forced to deposit the tax again after NOIDA had approved it.
NOIDA's counsel acknowledged that the petitioner had deposited the money for the tax debt, but it had done so under the incorrect heading without informing the petitioner so he could correct it.
Read More :MCA Imposes Penalty on Company and Directors for Non-Compliance with S.118(10) of Companies Act
The bench had found that NOIDA had acknowledged its error in failing to deposit the petitioner's tax under the incorrect heading. The Court determined that the contested orders were not capricious in light of these factors. Relying on decision of the Supreme Court in Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another regarding computation of compensation, Justice Piyush Agrawal directed NOIDA to pay Rs.19,22,778/- (the penalty determined by the assessing authority) to the petitioner.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
