Saleem Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. And 4
Facts
The petitioner, Saleem Ahmad, was awarded a contract in 2019, during the transition from the VAT to the GST regime. While the principal amount for the work done was paid by opposite parties 2 to 4, the Goods and Service Tax (GST) payable on this work was not remitted. Subsequently, the GST department assessed the petitioner as liable for this GST. The petitioner contends that the liability for the GST should fall on opposite parties 2 to 4, not on him. The present writ petition challenges this assessment and seeks a determination of the correct liability.
Held
The Court did not definitively decide on the core issue of who bears the GST liability. Instead, it directed the respondent no. 2 to 4 (the awarding authorities) to consider the petitioner's application regarding this liability. A reasoned and speaking order is to be passed by these respondents at the earliest, within two months. The Court's decision is procedural, remitting the matter for reconsideration by the relevant authorities rather than adjudicating the legal dispute itself. The specific GST provisions or contract clauses that would determine the liability were not analyzed or interpreted by the High Court in this order. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the primary question of liability was not resolved.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay GST on the contract awarded in 2019, or if the liability rests with the awarding authorities (opposite parties 2 to 4), considering the transition from VAT to GST regime? (Mixed question of law and fact, potentially turning on the interpretation of contract terms and GST provisions regarding taxability of services). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that the GST liability should be borne by the awarding authorities (opposite parties 2 to 4) and not by him, implying that the contract or the circumstances of payment should dictate who is responsible for remitting the tax. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, the GST department has assessed the petitioner as liable, indicating their position that the petitioner is indeed responsible for the GST.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25602-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4187 of 2025 Petitioner :- Saleem Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. And 4 Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Kapoor Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Heard.
The petitioner claims to have been awarded a contract by opposite party nos.2 to 4 in the year 2019, 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 4, 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 4 and not the petitioner.
Let the petitioner's application in this regard be considered by respondent no.2 to 4 and a reasoned and speaking order be passed in this regard at the earliest, say within two months. 4.The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan
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.