M/S Satish Tiwari Thru. Its Legal Representative Akhilesh Tiwari, Gonda vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Pwd And 3 Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Satish Tiwari, was awarded a contract by opposite parties 2 to 4 on May 12, 2017, during the transition from VAT to GST. While the payment for the work done was made by opposite parties 2 and 3, the GST payable was not remitted. Consequently, the GST department assessed the petitioner as liable for the GST on this work. The petitioner contends that the liability for GST should fall on opposite parties 2 and 3, not on them. The petition seeks consideration of this claim by the relevant authority.
Held
The Court directed that the petitioner's application regarding the GST liability be considered by respondent no.2, the Principal Chief Engineer (Development), UP, PWD, Gonda. A reasoned and speaking order is to be passed on this application at the earliest, within two months. The Court did not make a definitive finding on whether the petitioner or the awarding authorities are liable for the GST. The primary decision was to ensure the petitioner's claim is properly addressed by the administrative authority. The petition was disposed of based on this direction.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay GST for the work done under the contract awarded on May 12, 2017, or if the liability rests with the awarding authorities (opposite parties 2 and 3)? This issue turns on the interpretation of contractual obligations and the applicability of GST provisions during the transition period. Contentions: Petitioner: Argues that the GST liability should be borne by the awarding authorities (opposite parties 2 and 3) and not by them. They contend that the payment for the work was made by these parties, implying the GST component should also be their responsibility. Respondent (State/GST Department): The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent. However, their action of assessing the petitioner for GST indicates a contention that the petitioner is indeed liable.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18595-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 266 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Satish Tiwari Thru. Its Legal Representative Akhilesh Tiwari, Gonda Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Pwd And 3 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.2 to 4 on 12.05.2017, 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- Principal Chief Engineer (Development), UP, PWD, Gonda and a reasoned and speaking order be passed in this regard at the earlies
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.