Shatish Chandra Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13078 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shatish Chandra Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadava,Ram Narain Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gopal Verma Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is being made to suffer loss on account of impost of GST on the works contract awarded to him by the respondent no. 3 on 01.07.2017. Undisputedly, on that date itself the goods and service tax regime was enforced. According to the petitioner higher tax liability came into existence under the GST regime. However, the agreement that was executed in favour of the petitioner prior to 01.07.2017 were structured, keeping in mind the Value Added Tax regime that stood repealed with effect from 01.07.2017. In the above regard, Sri Gopal Verma, learned counsel for the Respondent Railways has brought to the notice of the Court that an order was issued by the Railway Board dated 27.10.2017 no. 2017/CE-I/CT/7/GST. Amongst other paragraph no. 2 of the said communication reads as below:- "
Considering the above, it has been decided to make existing works contracts awarded before implementation of GST, as GST neutral after carefully taking into account the input tax credit available to the contractor, on a case to case basis, on production of documentary evidence. This exercise may involve reimbursement to contractors or recovery from contractors depending upon the tax liability of the contractor before GST and after GST including input tax credit available to the contractor after GST." According to Sri Verma it is not clear if the petitioner has yet approached the respondent authorities with any prayer to enter into any supplementary agreement to take care of the additional tax liability which the petitioner claims, exists. Since, the respondent railways have already taken a policy decision to provide for the GST impact on the pre-existing contracts so as to make the levy of GST revenue neutral for the parties to the contract, no useful purpose would be served in keeping such petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit
at this stage. Clearly, no decision has been made by the respondent authorities in the individual facts of the present case. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner files a proper representation before respondent no. 3, Chief Administrative Officer claiming benefit of the aforesaid order of the Railway Board dated 27.10.2017 or such other and further orders as may have come into existence, in the meanwhile, within a period of two weeks from today, it is expected that the said respondent shall take a decision and inform accordingly consistent with its policy and pass appropriate order as may address the grievance being made by the petitioner within a period of one month. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 19.5.2022 Nisha at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.