M/S Manpower Servicing Agencies vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to submit a fresh representation to the 5th respondent, enclosing all necessary supporting documents, including details of the claimed GST difference and remittance certificates, within two weeks of receiving the order. Upon receipt, the 5th respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation strictly in accordance with the law. This includes giving the petitioner a due opportunity of being heard, verifying the records, and taking an appropriate decision on its own merits expeditiously, preferably within three months. Any due amount towards GST shall be released. The written instructions of the 5th respondent dated 30.09.2024 were made part of the Court record. The Court did not decide on the merits of the claim itself but facilitated a procedural path for its resolution.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Manpower Servicing Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' inaction in paying a GST/service tax difference amount totaling Rs. 12,39,906.00. This amount pertains to the periods from 01.11.2011 to 31.08.2016, 01.09.2016 to 30.06.2017, and 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2020. The petitioner argued that their representation dated 07.08.2024 was not considered. The 5th respondent, relying on written instructions dated 30.09.2024, stated that the petitioner claimed the difference for over nine years and had not raised objections during the contractual tenure, except for representations in Spandana. The respondent noted that a previous reply to a Spandana representation (dated 07.11.2023) indicated action would be taken upon submission of details, which the petitioner allegedly failed to provide. The respondent also highlighted that GST was paid as per then-existing rates and guidelines, and remittance certificates were not produced.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 5th respondent has failed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.08.2024 regarding the GST/service tax difference amount for the period 01.11.2011 to 30.06.2020, and if so, what is the consequence? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents have not paid the claimed GST/service tax difference amount and have failed to consider their objection and representation dated 07.08.2024. They also contended that details of GST amounts were furnished in statement forms (Annexure-I and Annexure-II) along with their representation dated 20.12.2023. Revenue/State's Contention: The 5th respondent argued that the petitioner is claiming the difference for an extended period (over 9 years) and had not raised objections during the contractual tenure. They stated that the petitioner failed to submit the necessary details of claiming the difference of GST amount, despite a previous communication indicating that action would be taken upon submission of such details. The respondent also asserted that GST was paid as per the then-applicable rates and guidelines, and the petitioner failed to produce remittance certificates. They further stated that the petitioner is responsible for late remittance and any penal interest, and that if any excess GST was paid, it would be paid upon furnishing details as per rules.