M/S Adeeba Constructions vs. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam And 4 Others

Held

The Court held that the deduction of 2% GST at source by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam from the bills of M/s Adeeba Constructions under Section 51 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The reasoning was based on the respondents' statement in their counter affidavit that they were deducting only 2% TDS as GST, which is permissible under the said section. The Court also held that the dispute with regard to the unit price is a purely contractual matter and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the question regarding the unit price was left open, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue available remedies under law. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Adeeba Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging the actions of the respondents, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and others. The core of the dispute concerned the deduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) from the petitioner's bills. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, clarified that they were deducting only 2% Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as GST under Section 51 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017. They stated that the remaining 10% GST was to be deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner also raised a dispute regarding the unit price of the services rendered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the deduction of 2% GST at source by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam from the bills of M/s Adeeba Constructions under Section 51 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, suffers from any legal infirmity. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly challenged the deduction, as evidenced by the writ petition. However, no specific arguments were recorded in the judgment regarding the petitioner's stance on the legality of the 2% deduction. Respondent's Contention: The respondents argued that the deduction of 2% GST at source under Section 51 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, was legally valid and did not suffer from any infirmity. They further contended that the remaining 10% GST was the responsibility of the petitioner to deposit. 2. Whether the dispute regarding the unit price of services rendered by the petitioner is amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner raised a dispute concerning the unit price, implying a challenge to its determination or application. Respondent's Contention: The respondents argued that the dispute concerning the unit price was a purely contractual matter and therefore not suitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction.