Shiv Contructions Parav Nawabganj, Gonda Thru. Partner Shushil Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy, State Tax, Lucknow And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Shiv Constructions, filed a writ petition seeking relief concerning GST payments. The petitioner had undertaken work for official opposite parties and was liable to deposit GST at 18%. However, the official opposite parties had not released the GST amount. The petitioner claimed to have already deposited GST at 12%, but the difference of 6% was not being paid by the official opposite parties. The Court had previously dealt with a similar matter in Writ Tax No. 42 of 2025, where it directed the opposite party no. 2 to verify facts and take a reasoned decision within one month. The petitioner requested the current matter be disposed of on similar terms.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order passed in a similar matter (Writ Tax No. 42 of 2025). The operative direction was that Opposite Party No. 2 (presumably the relevant authority within the State or its departments) shall verify the facts in light of the petitioner's claim regarding the payment of GST at the enhanced rate of 18% instead of 12%. A reasoned decision on this matter is to be taken positively within one month from the date of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST rate dispute itself but directed a procedural verification and decision-making process. The core reasoning is to ensure that the petitioner's claim regarding the GST differential is properly examined and a decision is rendered by the concerned authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the official opposite parties are liable to pay the difference in GST amount, specifically the 6% difference between the deposited 12% and the realizable/payable 18% for the work undertaken by the petitioner? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning contractual obligations and GST liability). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had deposited GST at 12% but the actual rate applicable and payable for the work was 18%. They sought direction for the official opposite parties to pay the remaining 6% difference, as the amount had not been released by them. The petitioner relied on the principle of ensuring full tax compliance and recovery. Revenue/State's Contention: The counsel for the State had no objection to the petition being disposed of on the terms previously ordered in a similar case, implying a willingness to have the facts verified and a decision taken.