M/S Satish Tiwari Thru. Legal Representative Akhilesh Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Pwd Civil Sectt. Govt. Of U.P. And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Satish Tiwari (through Legal Representative Akhilesh Tiwari), was awarded a contract in 2017. During this period, the transition from the Value Added Tax (VAT) regime to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime was occurring. While the contract amount for work done was paid by opposite parties 3 to 10, the GST payable on these payments was allegedly not paid. The GST department subsequently assessed the petitioner as liable for GST on payments received in Financial Year 2018-19. The petitioner contends that the liability for GST should fall on opposite parties 3 to 10, not on them.
Held
The Court directed the petitioner to submit a separate application before opposite parties 3 to 10. The Court observed that separate contracts were entered into between the petitioner and opposite parties 3 to 10. Consequently, opposite parties 3 to 10 are to consider the petitioner's application and pass a reasoned and speaking order at the earliest, preferably within two months. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations. The Court did not directly decide on the petitioner's liability or the liability of opposite parties 3 to 10 but remanded the matter for consideration by the concerned paying authorities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay GST on payments received for a contract awarded in 2017, during the transition from VAT to GST, when the liability is claimed to be that of the paying authorities (opposite parties 3 to 10)? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the incidence of GST liability under the GST regime and the contractual obligations). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the GST liability should be borne by opposite parties 3 to 10, who made the payments for the contract work, rather than the petitioner, especially considering the transition period from VAT to GST. Respondent (State of U.P. and Others): The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. The GST department's action of assessing the petitioner is noted.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20002-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 313 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Satish Tiwari Thru. Legal Representative Akhilesh Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Pwd Civil Sectt. Govt. Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari,Shailaja Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 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.3 in 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. 3 to 10, but the GST payable was not paid. Now the GST department has assessed the petitioner as liable to GST for the payment received in Financial Year 2018-19. The submission is that infact the liability should be of the opposite party nos. 3 to 10, and not the petitioner.
Let the petitioner submit separate application before the opp. party Nos. 3 to 10, as separate contracts were entered into between the petitioner and opp. party Nos. 3 to 10, who s
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.