Shri Rudragouda S Patil vs. The Executive Engineer
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: SHRI RUDRAGOUDA S. PATIL,
The petitioner, a registered civil contractor who undertakes civil and electrical contract work, is seeking a mandamus against the respondents to pay the difference of 6% GST amounting to Rs.1,17,78,045/-, by considering his representation dated 12.02.2024. 2. The counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds, pointed out that the petitioner has remitted GST on the payments made by the respondents at the rate of 18% from 18.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the issue is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court, documented at Annexures-C and D. Referring to these judgments, the counsel highlighted that, in terms of Section 13 of the GST Act, the payment made by the authority would be the relevant date to determine whether GST is payable at the rate of 12% or 18%. NC: 2024:KHC-D:9355
The counsels appearing for the respondent- authorities, however, contend that the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present set of facts. The counsel for the respondents claims that the projects were delayed at the instance of the petitioner and extension was sought. Therefore, the authorities cannot be primarily held liable to pay the differential amount of 6%. It is also pointed out that some of the works were allotted and the payments were made even before GST was implemented, and therefore, no mandamus can be issued in the present case.
Given the rival claims and the serious dispute regarding the petitioner’s entitlement to the 6% GST remitted by him, the petitioner must provide a detailed representation and furnish necessary details to the respondent-authorities. The respondent-authorities are relying on a government notification which indicates that if the contractor fails to complete the project and seeks an extension, the contractor is liable to pay the differential NC: 2024:KHC-D:9355 GST. Whether this government notification applies to the present set of facts also needs to be examined by the respondent-authority. Therefore, the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation along with records pertaining to the accomplishment of the contracted works and details of the GST remittance to the authorities. Upon receiving such a representation, the respondents shall consider the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the law.
The respondents are at liberty to seek further explanation or clarification from the petitioner before passing appropriate orders.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE
SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.