M/S Gaanesh Kartikey Constructions PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Held
The Court directed respondent No. 5, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD B&R, Pathankot, to consider the representation made by the petitioner on December 29, 2022. Respondent No. 5 is to take a final decision on the matter in accordance with the law within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Court's decision is based on the petitioner's grievance that the TDS deducted from their bills has not been deposited and reflected on the GST portal, causing them hardship. The principle derived is that statutory authorities must act upon representations concerning tax deductions and deposits within a reasonable timeframe as per the law.
Facts
The petitioner, a taxpayer, is seeking a direction for respondent No. 5, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD B&R, Pathankot, to deposit Rs. 2,51,444/-. This amount represents Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) at 2% deducted from the petitioner's running bills under Section 51 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claims this deducted TDS is not reflecting on the GST portal. A representation was made by the petitioner to the Executive Engineer on December 29, 2022, requesting timely deposit of the TDS and credit to the deductee. The petitioner alleges facing hardship due to the department's negligence.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court has the power to direct respondent No. 5 to deposit the TDS amount deducted under Section 51 of the CGST Act and SGST Act, 2017, and ensure it reflects on the GST portal? The petitioner argues that the deduction has been made, and it is the statutory obligation of the deductor to deposit it with the government, thereby enabling the petitioner to claim credit. Failure to do so causes financial hardship and operational issues for the petitioner. The petitioner relies on the provisions of Section 51 of the CGST Act and SGST Act, 2017, which mandate TDS deduction and deposit. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 51
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023:PHHC:081351-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
124
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.2,51,444/- i.e. the amount deducted from the first 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-7) 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.
Notice of motion.
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.