Swapan Kumar Gogoi vs. The State Of Assam And 8 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The Court found no infirmity in the State respondents applying the CGST and SGST Acts for making deductions against the petitioner's second and third running bills. This decision was based on a previous judgment of the same Court in WP(C) No. 4201/2020, which had upheld Circular No. 3/2017-GST. This circular clarified that for work contracts partially executed on or after July 1, 2017, where invoices were raised and payments received during the GST regime, TDS would be made as per the GST Act, as the transaction was not accounted for under the old Act. The Court noted that if the petitioner believed they were entitled to any concession as per law, they were free to submit a representation to the authorities. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court found the petition moot based on prior precedent.

Facts

The petitioner, Swapan Kumar Gogoi, was awarded a contract for the construction of a wholesale fish market in Goalpara district, Assam, with a bid price of Rs. 2,32,14,600/-. The Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued when the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was in force. The petitioner's first running bill was processed under the 2003 Act. However, his second and third running bills, submitted after July 1, 2017, had deductions made in accordance with the Assam Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 (SGST Act) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner contended that deductions should have continued under the old Act as the NIT was issued prior to the GST regime.

Key Issues

1. Whether Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on work contracts, where the NIT was issued under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, but the bills were raised after the commencement of the CGST and SGST Acts, should be governed by the provisions of the 2003 Act or the new GST Acts? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that since the NIT was issued under the 2003 Act and the first running bill was processed accordingly, the subsequent running bills should also be processed under the 2003 Act, despite being submitted after the GST regime came into effect. They relied on the principle that the terms of the NIT should govern the contract. Revenue's Argument: The respondents argued that the TDS deduction should be made as per the prevailing law at the time the bills were raised. They relied on Circular No. 3/2017-GST dated August 24, 2017, which was upheld by this Court in a similar writ petition (WP(C) No. 4201/2020), stating that if bills and invoices were raised after the coming into force of the SGST and CGST Acts, TDS would have to be made as per the provisions of the new Acts. They also noted that the actual deduction was 1% CGST and 1% SGST, not the claimed 12%.