M/S Satish Tiwari Thru. Legal Representative, Akhilesh Tiwari, Gonda vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. (Red) And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Satish Tiwari Thru. Legal Representative, Akhilesh Tiwari, was awarded a contract in 2017, a period of transition from VAT to GST. The payment for the work done was made by opposite parties 2 and 3, but the Goods and Services 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 and 3, not on them. The petition is before the High Court challenging this assessment.
Held
The Court directed that the petitioner's application, asserting that the GST liability should be on opposite parties 2 to 4, be considered by respondent no.2 to 4. A reasoned and speaking order is to be passed on this application at the earliest, preferably within two months. The Court did not definitively decide on the ultimate liability for the GST. The ratio of the decision is that administrative authorities must consider and pass reasoned orders on applications concerning tax liability, especially during transitional periods, before judicial intervention. The operative direction is to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a speaking order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay GST for the work done under the contract awarded in 2017, or if the liability rests with the awarding authorities (opposite parties 2 and 3), considering the transition from VAT to GST regime. This issue turns on the interpretation of relevant GST provisions concerning the point of taxation and liability for services rendered during the transition period. Contentions: Petitioner: Argues that the GST liability should be borne by opposite parties 2 and 3, who awarded the contract and made payments for the work done, implying they should have also handled the tax implications. The petitioner's submission is that the tax liability does not lie with them. Revenue/State: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state authorities regarding their stance on the GST liability.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20321-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 315 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Satish Tiwari Thru. Legal Representative, Akhilesh Tiwari, Gonda Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. (Red) And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari,Shailaja 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 2017, which was a time when a transfer was taking 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 3, 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 and 3 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
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.