Jitendra Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Jitendra Singh, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bhabhua Circle (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner sought a direction to declare the order illegal and void, and to prevent the respondents from pressuring him for payment. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the Executive Engineer, Kamand Kshetra Vikash Pramandal, Bhabhua Kaimur (Respondent No. 2) had not paid the full rate of GST on works value, deducting only 2% TDS as per the works contract agreement. The State 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 from the Engineer-in-Chief.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by remanding the matter to the Executive Engineer, Kamand Kshetra Vikash Pramandal, Bhabhua Kaimur (Respondent No. 2). The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the petitioner's case in terms of the judgment and order dated 05.07.2019 in M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors., as well as the letter No. 5405 dated 30.07.2019. The Court clarified that all issues of facts and law were left open for determination by the authority. The Court expressed hope that the Executive Engineer would decide the case expeditiously, preferably within four months from the receipt of the order. The Court did not decide the legality of the Assistant Commissioner's order or the specific GST deduction issue, leaving them open for the remanded authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bhabhua Circle, is illegal, void, and without jurisdiction, as contended by the petitioner? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Executive Engineer, Kamand Kshetra Vikash Pramandal, Bhabhua Kaimur, was justified in deducting only 2% TDS on the GST component of the works contract value, as per the agreement, and not paying the full GST rate, as argued by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax was illegal and that the Executive Engineer had improperly calculated the GST deduction, only deducting 2% TDS instead of the full applicable rate as per the works contract. The petitioner sought relief from undue pressure for payment. Respondent's Contention: The State submitted that the matter was covered by the judgment in M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors. and a subsequent letter dated 30.07.2019. The State had no objection to the matter being remanded to the appropriate authority for consideration on its merits.