BharatTaxGST

Swathi Engineering Constructions. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Original PDF →
WP/11329/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01021563202529 April 2025Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,Y. LAKSHMANA RAO8 pages
For Petitioner: SRI L CHANDRA OBUL REDDYFor Respondent: ASST, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF, INDIA

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
T IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO thousand and twenty five PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTlCE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11329 OF 2025 Between: Swathi Engineering Constructrdas,' Flat No. 502. Maitreyapuram Apartment Ramnagar 1 Lane, Ongole, Pfakas^rn District. Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri S Venu Gopal Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy ...Petitioner . V -4 AND 1. The Assistant Commissipner. (ST), Circle-1, Ongole, Prakasam District 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes Dep'arthi&ft' AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 3. The Union of India, Rep. by it^ Secretary, Finance, Ministry of Finance North Block, New Delhi. 4. Executive Engineer, , PIU (PR) Division, Ongole 5. Executive Engineer, PIU (PR) Division, Nellore 6. Executive Engineer, RW'S end s'Division, Ongole 7. Executive Engineer, R andiB Division, Kanigiri 8. Executive Engineer, R and B Division, Ongole ...Respondents Petition under Article 22B ioMJe Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus of any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring that the impugned order in Form DRC-07 vide ARN- ZD370225d4^1ML dated 27.02.2025 passed by the 1st ■V.-' r . ■ r7i f Respondent for the year 202M3'-dnder Section 73 of GST Act. 2017, levying GST at the rate of ISperCeht on the Works Contracts executed by the petitioner for Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 of State Government, is contrary to SI. No. 3 (Vi) of the N^|ifiga]«gn No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) 28.06.2017, as amended by. Notification No. / 20 of 2017 (Rate) dated 22.08.2017 and Notification Nq:;24k 2017- Central Tax Central Tax dated 21.09.2017 (Rate) is without jurisdiction, contrary to law and illegal and consequently set aside the same or:.alternatively in case it is held that the rate of tax at the rate of 18percent is correct the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 are to pay the differential tax at the rate of 6percent along with interest and penalty totaling to Rs 1,58.00.^62/^Tor the year 2022-23 with respect to the works executed up to 18.d7:2d^ either to the petitioner so that the petitioner remits to the Department, or pay directly to the tax department on The account of the petitioner arid further direct the Respondents Nos. 4 to pay the differential tax at the rate of 6percent along with interest and penalty totaling to Rs 1,58.00i2e2/- for the works executed with effect from so that the petitioner remits to the on the account of the 18.07.2022 either to the petitiBH^K Department, or pay directly tb fhd tax department petitioner ^ ; r lA NO: 1 OF 209fi Petition under Section "fSl CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affi(M/itfiled i Court may be pleased to grdhtTitiy of all further in support of the petition, the High proceedings including and penalty totaling to Rs 1,58,00,262/-, pirrsuant to the impugned order in Form DRC- 07 passed by the 1st RespondehfTdr the year 2022-23 under Section 73 of CGST/APGST Act, 2017 recovery of differential tax at theTite of 6% along with interest Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L CHANDRA OBUL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.l, 2: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX :Vf Counsel for the Respondent No.3: ASST, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondents Nq.4 to 6: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMET Counsel for the Respondents No.7, 8: GP FOR ROADS AND BUILDINGS The Court made the following: Ofder —J APHC010215632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3536] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11329/2025 Between: Swathi Engineering Constructions. ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner St and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L CHANDRA OBUL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RIJFIAL DEV 2.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 3.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX:

The Court made the following order: (perHon’ble Sh Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner is a partnership firm, engaged in the works contract services of the State Government. It had executed various infrastructure works in the years 2021-22 and 2022-23. The bills relating to these works were released in the year 2022-23 by the State Government.

2 RRR, J & Dr. YLR, J \ W.P.No.ll329of2U25 works, executed for the State

2.

The petitioner, under the belief that Government and State Cover collected 12% tax from respondents of various divisions where the same to the Commercial Tax Department. nmem MUthorities, would attract tax @ 12%, 4 to 8, who were the Executive had Engineers \ petitioner had executed works and had paid the 3. Thereafter, the 1 respondent passed order of assessment, assessment, the 1®* -over of the petitioner @ 12% upto 17.07.2023 an dated 27.02.2025 against the petitioner. In the order of respondent assessed the turn and 18% from 18.07.2023. 4. Aggrieved by this order of assessment, the petitioner filed the to be taken to issued for setting present Writ Petition, be 12% from the entire tax aside the order of assessment. contending that the rate of tax would have period and sought a writ to be i

5.

The contention of the Nos.11/2017, dated 28.06.2017, dated 21.09.2017, make it clear levied on the petitioner a direction to respondents 4 to with interest and penalty, which the petitioner or to the Tax Department directly. petitioner is that notifications 20/2017, dated 22.08.2017 that the rate of tax that would bearing and 24/2017 have been was 12%. In the alternative, the 8 to pay differential rate of tax petitioner also sought @ 6% along would amount to Rs. 1,58,00,262/- either to RRR, J & Dr. YLR, J This Court, in a similar circumstance, after considering the issue 6. of rate of tax that would be payable before 1(3.07.2022 and after 18.07.2022 had held that the rate of tax payable, after 18.07.2022 would be 18% percent. In the present case, the Assessing Authority had applied the rate 7. of 18% with effect from 18.07.2022 on the basis of notification No.3/2022. In that view of the matter, the order of the 1®‘ respondent, applying 18% as rate of tax with respect to the works executed upto 8. 18.07.2022, does not require any interference. as the Executive Engineers, spondents 4 to 8 acting on behalf of the 2"^^ respondent, would be required to make good the differential rate of 6% tax, which has been levied on the petitioner, by virtue of fho ro il I W I W

8.

Ho'we \/or w the impugned order, dated 27.02.2025. It is settled law that in a case of indirect taxation, the person who is primarily liable for payment of such tax is permitted to pass on the burden to the purchaser provided there is such an arrangement between the two of them. In the present case, the respondents 4 to 8, having paid 12% tax to the petitioner, cannot dispute the further rate of 6% tax. In the circumstances, this Writ F’etition is disposed of, affirming the impugned order, dated 27.02.2025, vide DIN; 3727022557609, passed by the 1®^ respondent for the tax period 2022-23. However, there shall also be a direction to respondents 4 to 8 to pay the tax of differential amount for the 10. RRR, J & Dr. YLR, J ^ the petitioner to pass on the said tax period 2022-23 to the petitioner ot enable to the GST Department, two (02) months from the date interest is recoverable from the also have to be borne by respondents costs. The said payment shall be cleared within a period of of receipt of this order. Needless to say, if any \ : \ petitioner for late payment, the 4 to 8. There shall be same would no order as to As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR l\l //// Vv I SECTION OFFICER To.

1.

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Circle-1, Ongole, Prakasam District.

2.

The Wncipal Secretary, Stote of Andhra Pradesh. Commercial Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

3.

The Secretary Union of India, Finance, Ministry of Finance Block, New Delhi. ' V' ’ ■ , -

4.

Executive Engineer, PIU (RR) Division, Ongole

5.

Executive Engineer, PIU (PR) Division, Nellore

6.

Executive Engineer, RWS and S Division, Ongole

7.

Executive Engineer, R ar>diB Division, Kanigiri

8.

Executive Engineer, R and B Division, Ongole

9.

One CC to SRI L CHANDRA OBUL REDDY Advocate [OPUC] ^° R^di^lou?f COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court of Andhra PANGh|yaY raj. High Court of Andhra Pradesh ^^■prade^hloUTf BUILDINGS, High Court of Andhra

13.

Three CD Copies Taxes North gsg I

T HIGH COURT DATED: 30/04/2025 \ ■..-i' ORDER WP.No.11329 of 2025 1 23 OCT 2025 „ ITI; DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.