T.I.Raju v. State Of Kerala
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 3791 OF 2021 PETITIONER : T.I.RAJU, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.LATE T.E.ITHAPIRI, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KOCHI – 682 030. BY ADVS. ELDHO PAUL SMT.TESSY JOSE RESPONDENTS : 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (FINANCE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 033. 4 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE – 673 009. 5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.DIVISION, SULTHANBATHERI, WAYANAD – 673 592. BY DR.THUSHARA JAMES, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER BY SHRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY GEORGIE JOHNY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3791 OF 2021 2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No.3791 of 2021 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 20th day of May, 2022
JUDGMENT The relief sought for by the petitioner is as follows :- “Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to reimburse 12% of the GST amounts due to the petitioner”.
Petitioner is an 'A' class Government Contractor, who had allegedly carried out various works on behalf of the Kerala Water Authority. According to the petitioner, after the enactment of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act), there was an enhancement of the tax liability for the works carried out by the petitioner and therefore, the same is liable to be reimbursed/ compensated by the employer of the contract. Petitioner also relies upon Circular dated 10.08.2017 as per which the Kerala Water Authority had decided to reimburse the additional payments made by respective contractors due to the enactment of the Act.
Sri.Georgie Johny, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority, upon instructions submitted that though petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation, the same was not
WP(C) NO. 3791 OF 2021 3 supported by any proof of payment of GST and in such circumstances, the 3rd respondent cannot take a decision. However, it was further submitted that if petitioner provides necessary proof of having paid the GST, necessarily the respondents shall take a decision thereon.
In view of the above submission and on a perusal of the pleadings in this writ petition, I am satisfied that this writ petition can be disposed with a direction. Accordingly, I direct the competent amongst the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that if the petitioner has not already produced the records to show proof of payment of GST for the works awarded to him, an opportunity shall be granted to produce such proof, before taking a decision on Ext.P4. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM
WP(C) NO. 3791 OF 2021 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3791/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1OF THE AGREEMENT NO.SE/PHC/KKD/14/2016-17 DATED 06.02.2017 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE 2ND PART BILL DATED 27.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/2019 DATED 01.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.10.2020 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.