S.Sivaprasad vs. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 13858 OF 2021 PETITIONER: S.SIVAPRASAD, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.SOMAN.P., KRISHNAMOORTHY VILLA, THETTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM-20. BY ADV SAJU J PANICKER RESPONDENTS: 1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.CIRCLE, KOLLAM. 3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. BY ADV SHRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13858 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ---------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 13858 of 2021 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2021 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to reimburse an amount of Rs.10,31,223.72/- paid by the petitioner as GST in connection with the work undertaken by the petitioner. Petitioner is a contractor who had undertaken various works for the Kerala Water Authority, one of which was the work for the water supply scheme to Karyara in Vilakudy Panchayat. Petitioner pleads that at the time when tender was floated GST was not implemented. Subsequently, when GST was implemented, Kerala Water Authrotiy decided to absorb the GST paid by the contractors by reimbursing the sums paid as GST on production of payment receipts. According to the petitioner, the amounts paid by the petitioner towards GST are liable to reimbursed by the respondents. He bases his claim for reimbursement on Ext.P2 circular and the payment receipts
WP(C) NO. 13858 OF 2021 3 already submitted.
It is seen from Ext.P2 circular that the Kerala Water Authority had, by circular dated 10.08.2017 clarified that due to the change in the indirect tax regime and the tax rates, the GST paid and sum of all the taxes subsumed under the GST applicable at the time of bidding shall be absorbed by the Kerala Water Authority on production of payment receipt of GST towards the goods and services on the respective item executed under the tender. In other words, as per the said circular, the GST paid by persons like the petitioner are liable to be reimbursed by the Kerala Water Authority on production of the payment receipts.
According to the petitioner, the amounts paid by the petitioner towards GST have not been reimbursed as directed under Ext.P2 circular. The delay in reimbursement is causing great prejudice and loss to the petitioner which compelled him to file Ext.P4 representation before the third respondent.
I have heard Adv.Saju J. Panicker as well as Adv.Benjamin Paul, Standing Counsel for Kerala Water
WP(C) NO. 13858 OF 2021 4 Authority.
I find from Ext.P6 judgment that this Court has on earlier occasions directed the Kerala Water Authority to take up the representation filed by the respective petitioners in those cases and pass appropriate orders. It is also brought to my notice that in other cases also the Kerala Water Authority has paid the amounts due to the respective contractors, as per provisions in Ext.P2 circular. There is no reason why the petitioner should not be treated differently.
The need for the respective contractors to approach this Court for obtaining directions to compel Kerala Water Authority to abide by the circulars issued by themselves is a practice which is liable to be deprecated. It must be done on their own volition, especially when the circular issued by Kerala Water Authority stares at their face.
Having said so and having compelled the petitioner to approach this Court for such a direction, I find no reason to refrain from issuing directions for consideration of the representation filed by the petitioner as Exts. P4 and P5. WP(C) NO. 13858 OF 2021 5 Though the said representations were filed before the second and third respondents, I direct the first respondent to call for those representations and, having regard to the circular already issued, which is produced as Ext.P2, to take a decision on the request of the petitioner for reimbursement of GST paid by them within a period of one month, and to abide by the said decision within a period of three weeks thereafter. This writ petition is allowed as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJ/06.09.2021
WP(C) NO. 13858 OF 2021 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13858/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THEOF THE LETTER DATED 04.08.2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 THEOF THE CIRCULAR/GST/002/17 DATED 10.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY. Exhibit P3 THEOF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 13.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 THEOF THE LETTER DATED 16.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 THEOF THE LETTER DATED 08.08.2017 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P6 THEOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.06.2018 IN WPC 13676 OF 2018 AND IN WPC NO.13630 OF 2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
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.