Writ Petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the order dated 28th January, 2022 passed U/s 74(9) of the OGST Act

Petitioner contended that it has disclosed all the transactions under the CGST registration, since its OGST registration was kept dormant till it was cancelled with effect from 22nd January, 2019. He further contends that though it had received certain amount towards “Viability Gap Fund” from the Government for its work undertaken under PPP mode, it claimed exemption from levy of GST, in view of the definition of the term “consideration” U/s 2(31) which excludes “subsidy given by the Central Government or the State Government.

Placing stress on the findings of the adjudicating authority vide order dated 28th January, 2022 vide Annexure-1, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the CT & GST, appearing on advance notice, submitted that the Viability Gap Fund as received from the Government being deposited with the account under “GSTIN21AACCL6065D1ZY”; it was obligated on the part of the Petitioner to have disclosed the same by filing returns under the OGST Act. He further argued that Viability Gap Fund cannot be construed to be “subsidy”, thereby he attempted to justify the levy of tax on the said amount. He urged that there being factual dispute involved in the matter, the Petitioner is required to be directed to file alternative remedy available under the statute.

The counsel for the Petitioner opposing vehemently submitted that it was placed under the domain of CGST Authority and its assessment should have been undertaken by the Central Government Authorities but not the State Government Revenue Authorities.