Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY
Shobha Choudhary W/o. Narendra Kumar Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
Raipur Development Authority Through Cheif Executive Officer – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the demand notices, whereby, demand of 18% GST over and above the quoted price has been made and the letter whereby, their representations have been rejected and they were granted three days’ time to deposit the premium amount along with 18% GST over the bid price quoted by the petitioners.
2. The facts of the present cases are that the Respondent - Raipur Development Authority under the Devendra Nagar (Commercial Complex) Scheme floated a tender for allotment of plots in a Commercial Complex for 30 years’ lease at Devendra Nagar, Raipur and same was published in the newspaper on 01.03.2018. The petitioners and other interested participants participated in the bid process for allotment of plots in the commercial complex and their offers were accepted. The petitioners were allotted different plots admeasuring each one 750 sq.ft. for 30 years’ lease. In the tender document it was provided that the participant has to deposit 25% of the tender amount as earnest money for
The exemption under Section 11 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is unconditional, barring the demand for GST on the premium charged for long-term leases for public health care projects.
A lessee's obligation to pay stamp duty is determined by the premium for the lease, defined under relevant statutes.
The court ruled that tender documents clearly required prices quoted to exclude Goods and Services Tax (GST), affirming that ambiguity in contractual terms did not exist.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority to levy development charges must be in existence at the time of granting permission, and the recovery of the amount of premium o....
Development charges for nazul land must be assessed and determined at the time of granting permission, and any subsequent demand based on later government resolutions is not legally valid.
Tax liability exists under GST for construction services, notwithstanding the execution date of prior development agreements. Notifications clarify that such services are exigible to tax upon complet....
The demand for misc. expenses, development charges, and lease money was illegal and non est in law as the Guidelines governing the auction did not authorize the respondent-Board to realize these amou....
The assignment of leasehold rights does not qualify as a supply of services under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and is thus not subject to GST.
The principle that the highest bid does not guarantee acceptance in tender processes, and the authority's discretion must be exercised based on relevant commercial considerations and adherence to pro....
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.