Chandrabhushan Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Chandrabhushan Singh, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking various reliefs. These included a declaration that an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bhabhua Circle (Respondent No. 3) was illegal and without jurisdiction, and a direction to the Executive Engineer, Kamand Kshetra Vikash Pramandal, Bhabhua Kaimur (Respondent No. 2) to pay the full rate of GST as per the agreement, rather than deducting only 2% TDS of GST on the works value. The petitioner also sought to restrain Respondent No. 3 from pressuring him for payment. The State's counsel submitted that the case was covered by a previous judgment in M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors. and a subsequent letter issued by the Engineer-in-Chief. The State had no objection to the matter being remanded for consideration on its merits.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2, the Executive Engineer, Kamand Kshetra Vikash Pramandal, Bhabhua Kaimur, Bihar, to consider and decide the petitioner's case. This decision was to be made in terms of the judgment and order dated 05.07.2019 in M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors., and letter No. 5405 dated 30.07.2019. The Court explicitly clarified that all issues of fact and law were left open for consideration by the authority. The Court expressed hope that Respondent No. 2 would decide the case expeditiously, preferably within four months from the receipt of the order. The ratio decidendi is that disputes concerning GST payments and TDS deductions in works contracts, particularly when referencing established judicial pronouncements and departmental clarifications, should be remanded to the appropriate executive authority for a fresh, merit-based decision within a stipulated timeframe.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bhabhua Circle, was illegal, void, and without jurisdiction, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner's order was unlawful and sought its annulment. The State did not contest this point directly but agreed to a remand for fresh consideration. 2. Whether the Executive Engineer, Kamand Kshetra Vikash Pramandal, Bhabhua Kaimur, was obligated to pay the full GST rate as per the works contract agreement, and whether the deduction of only 2% TDS on the works value was incorrect, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the deduction was contrary to the agreement. The State indicated its willingness to have the matter decided in accordance with law, referencing a prior judgment and a departmental letter.