M/S Gaanesh Kartikey Constructions PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the TDS was actually deposited or not. Instead, it focused on the procedural aspect of the petitioner's representation. The Court directed respondent No. 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.12.2022 and take a final decision thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Court did not make any specific findings on the amount in dispute or the alleged negligence of the department. The operative direction was to decide the pending representation.
Facts
The petitioner, a taxpayer, sought a direction from the High Court to respondent No. 5, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD B&R, Pathankot, to deposit Rs. 1,90,988/-. This amount was deducted as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) at 2% from the petitioner's third running bills under Section 51 of the CGST and SGST Acts. The petitioner alleged that this deducted TDS was not reflecting on the GST portal. A representation dated 29.12.2022 was made by the petitioner to respondent No. 5, highlighting the delay in depositing the TDS and requesting credit to the deductee. The petitioner claimed to be facing hardship due to the department's alleged negligence.
Key Issues
1. Whether respondent No. 5 has failed to deposit the TDS amount of Rs. 1,90,988/- deducted from the petitioner's running bills under Section 51 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with the GST portal, and if so, what is the consequence? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the TDS amount deducted from their bills has not been deposited on the GST portal, causing them hardship. They relied on their representation dated 29.12.2022 to respondent No. 5 for timely deposit and credit to the deductee. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the revenue or respondent No. 5. Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Sr. Panel Counsel, accepted notice on behalf of the Union of India.
Sections Cited
Section 51
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023:PHHC:079900-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
138
CWP No.11722 of 2023 Date of decision:29.05.2023
…. Petitioner
Versus
…. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present : Mr.. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
RITU BAHRI, J. (oral)
In the present petition the petitioner is seeking issuance of direction to respondent No.5 to deposit Rs.1,90,988/- i.e. the amount deducted from the third running bills under Section 51 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 & State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against the GSTIN number of the petitioner with the GST portal maintained by respondent No.
This deduction as TDS @2% is not showing on the GST portal. A detailed representation has been made by the petitioner on 29.12. 2022 (Annexure P-5) to the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD B& R, Pathankot to deposit the TDS on time and to pass the credit to the deductee. The petitioner is facing unnecessary hardship due to negligence on the part of the department.
Noti
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.