Ch Gowri Shankar Infra Build (INDIA) PVT Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ch Gowri Shankar Infra Build (India) Pvt Limited, filed a writ petition challenging summary orders dated May 22, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). These orders demanded Rs. 4,76,44,002/- for the tax periods 2019-20 to 2022-23 (up to November 2022) under the CGST and SGST Acts, 2017. The petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent, Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure Corporation Ltd (APIIC), had agreed to pay the GST liability arising from a contract executed by the petitioner for APIIC. The petitioner argued that APIIC remitted GST at 12% of the turnover, whereas the impugned order assessed GST at 18%. The petitioner sought to set aside the summary orders and a direction for the 3rd respondent to pay the differential tax.
Held
The Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of, affirming the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the 1st respondent for the tax periods 2019-2020 to 2022-2023. The Court directed the 3rd respondent (APIIC) to pay the differential amount of tax for the period 2019-2020 to 2022-2023 to the petitioner, enabling the petitioner to pass on the said tax to the GST Department. This payment is to be cleared within two months of the order's receipt. The Court further stipulated that any interest recoverable from the petitioner for late payment would also be borne by the 3rd respondent, and the penalty issue would also be considered. The Court noted that the issue was covered by a previous judgment in W.P.No.22663 of 2023. The ratio decidendi is that while the assessment order stands, the contractual obligation for tax payment between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent must be honored, with the 3rd respondent bearing the differential tax and any consequential interest or penalties.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in passing Summary Orders dated 22.05.2023, demanding a tax of Rs.4,76,44,002/- for the tax periods 2019-20 to 2022-23 (up to November 2022) under the CGST and SGST Acts, 2017, without considering the objections, is arbitrary, contrary to law, without jurisdiction, and in violation of principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the GST rate applicable to the contract executed by the petitioner for the 3rd respondent should be 12% or 18%? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the 3rd respondent (APIIC) had agreed to bear the GST liability. They contended that the applicable GST rate should be 12%, not 18% as assessed by the respondent. The petitioner also argued that the summary orders were passed without considering their objections, violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. Respondents' contentions: The judgment states that it was agreed on both sides that a previous judgment in W.P.No.22663 of 2023, disposed of on 24.07.2024, would cover the issues in the present writ petition.
Sections Cited
CGST Act, 2017, SGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order or Direction declare the action of the 1 Respondent in passing Summary Orders da d 22.05.2023 raising a tax demand of Rs.4,76,44,002/- for tax period 2019-20 to 2022-23 (upto November 2022) under the CGST and SGST Acts, 2017, without St
considering the objections, as arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the COST and SGST Acts, 2017, without authority of law and without juri iction and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law and consequently set aside the Summary Orders of the 1®* Respondent, dated 22.05.2023 as the same is null and void, (ii) direct the 3 Respondent to pay the balance tax of 6% (18%-12%) to the Petitioner, so to enable the Petitioner to make the balance tax due to the Department, in the interest of justice and equity. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further Proceedings, pursuant to the Summary Orders of the 1®* Respondent, dated 22.05.2023 passed for the tax period 2019-20 to 2022-23 (upto November 2022) under the COST & SGST Acts, 2017. pending disposal of the Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following Order: I rd as APHC010412962023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3488] r WEDNE AY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21256/2023 Between: Ch Gowri Shankar Infra Build (india) Pvt Limited AND ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) Assistant Commissioner St and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.GPFOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
J UGRANARASIMHA (SC FOR APIIC) The Court made the following Order: (perHon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) I Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner contending The present that the 3'“ respondent - M/s^ APIIC had agreed to pay the G ST. liability of contract executed by the petitioner for M/s. APIIC. However, arising out M/s. APIIC turnover. The petitioner is also assailing the order of assessment assessing G.S.T. @ 18% of turnover. The petitioner contends that the actual rate of tax had remitted G.S.T. @ 12 % while rate of G.S.T. of 18% of the should be 12%.
# This issue had come up before this Court in W.P.No.22663 of 2023, which was disposed of on 24.07.2024. 2. It is agreed on both sides that the said judgment would cover the issue in the present Writ Petition also.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, affirming the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period 2019-2020 to 2022-2023 However, there shall also be a direction to the 3rd respondent to pay the differential amount of tax for the period 2019-2020 to 2022-2023 to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to pass on the said tax to the GST Department. The said payment shall be cleared within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to say, if any interest is recoverable from the petitioner for late payment, the same would also have to be borne by the 3^"^ respondent and the penalty issue also to be considered. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. 1 / B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR A/l SECTION OFFICER //// To , The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Office of Regional GST Audit and Enforcement Office, Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh,
The Principal Secretary, State 1 of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (CT) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Amaravati. Chief Engineer (South), Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure Corporation of Andhra Pradesh undertaking), 9
The th Floor,APIIC Ltd, (Government Tower-1, IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur Dist - 522 505. 4. One CC to Sri. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Advocate [OPUC] COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court of Andhra
Two CCs to GP FOR Pradesh. [OUT]
Three CD Copies. LA Writ NS Sec. DDU'
\ HIGH COURT DATED: 14/08/2024 ORDER WP.No.21256 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^ 3II JAN 2C2j I ^ . Current Section
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.