Bipul Das vs. The State Of Assam And 7 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Circular No. 3/2017-GST dated August 24, 2017, is in accordance with Sections 12 and 13 read with Clause 6(a) of Schedule II of the Act of 2017 and CGST. Consequently, the petitioners are liable to pay GST at 6% under the Act of 2017 and 6% under CGST for invoices raised on or after July 1, 2017, for which payments were received or were receivable on or after that date. Directions to deposit GST at 12% for such invoices were deemed lawful. Deductions made by respondents for these invoices were also considered lawful, and no writ would be issued to release such amounts unless petitioners demonstrate that invoices were raised before July 1, 2017, as per the aforementioned circular. Regarding the entitlement to the benefit of Section 64A of the Act of 1930 (for tax enhancement), the Court found insufficient materials to decide due to the complexity of contract terms. Petitioners were granted liberty to submit representations to the awarding authorities with supporting materials, who must consider the judgment's observations and decide on reimbursement within six months.

Facts

A batch of seven writ petitions were filed before the Gauhati High Court concerning the applicability of GST versus the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The core issue revolved around contracts awarded prior to July 1, 2017 (when GST was implemented), but where bills were raised and payments were made after this date. The petitioners, contractors, sought clarity on whether they were liable for GST on these post-July 1, 2017 transactions and if they could claim the additional tax burden from the respondent authorities (State of Assam and various departments). The amount in dispute was the GST liability on invoices and payments made after the GST regime commenced.

Key Issues

1. Whether the deduction of tax in respect of the petitioners should be made under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, or the Assam Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, considering contracts were awarded before July 1, 2017, but bills and payments were made thereafter. This question hinges on the applicability of the respective tax laws to transactions occurring post-GST implementation. 2. If the petitioners are liable to pay GST, do they have a right to claim the additional tax in the form of GST from the respondent authorities. This issue is contingent on the resolution of the first question and concerns the recovery of increased tax burdens from the contracting parties. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that since the contracts were entered into before the GST regime, they should not be subjected to GST. They sought to claim the additional tax burden from the authorities. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state respondents. However, it addresses the applicability of GST on transactions occurring after July 1, 2017, and the conditions for claiming tax enhancements under Section 64A of the Act of 1930.