Saleem Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development Lko. And 4 Others
Facts
The petitioner, Saleem Ahmad, was awarded a contract in 2018, during the transition from the VAT regime to the GST regime. While the principal amount for the work done was paid by the contracting authorities (opposite party nos. 2 to 5), the Goods and Services Tax (GST) payable on this work remained unpaid. Subsequently, the GST department assessed the petitioner as liable for this GST. The petitioner contends that the liability for the GST should fall upon the contracting authorities, not himself. The present petition was filed before the High Court challenging the GST department's assessment.
Held
The Court did not decide the core issue of who is liable for the GST. Instead, it directed the contracting authorities (opposite party nos. 2 to 5) to consider the petitioner's application regarding this liability. The Court ordered that a reasoned and speaking order be passed by these authorities at the earliest, within two months. The petition was disposed of based on this direction, effectively deferring the substantive determination of tax liability to the administrative authorities. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed or interpreted by the Court in reaching this procedural outcome.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay GST on the contract awarded in 2018, or if the liability rests with the contracting authorities (opposite party nos. 2 to 5), considering the transition from VAT to GST. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that the contracting authorities should be responsible for the GST payment, implying that the assessment by the GST department placing the liability on him is incorrect. The petitioner's counsel likely relies on the principle that the entity receiving the service or making the payment is typically responsible for the tax, especially during a transitional period where clarity might be lacking. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the GST department or the State. However, the fact that the GST department assessed the petitioner implies their stance is that the petitioner is the taxable person responsible for the GST.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28165-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4514 of 2025 Petitioner :- Saleem Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Kapoor Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel for State-opposite party No.1. 2. The petitioner claims to have been awarded a contract by opposite party nos.2 to 5 in the year 2018, which was a time when a transfer had taken place from Value Added Tax (VAT) regime to Goods and Service Tax (GST) regime. The amount payable to the petitioner for the work done was given by the opposite party nos.2 to 5, but the GST payable was not paid. Now the GST department has assessed the petitioner as liable to GST for the aforesaid work done. The submission is that infact the liability should be of the opposite party nos.2 to 5 and not the petitioner.
Let the petitioner's application in this regard be considered by opposite pa
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.