M/S Maa Vindhya Vasini Constructions vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court observed that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to approach Respondent No. 2 by filing an appropriate representation within 10 days from the date of the order. The Court further directed that if the representation is filed within the stipulated time, Respondent No. 2 shall consider all aspects of the matter and decide the same by a speaking and reasoned order, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not make any finding on the petitioner's entitlement to the refund at 18% GST.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Maa Vindhya Vasini Constructions, a contractor, claims entitlement to a refund of GST at 18% for work contract services rendered to the respondents. However, the refund was granted at 12%. The petitioner had previously submitted a representation to Respondent No. 4. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, seeking a direction for their grievance to be considered by Respondent No. 2 within a stipulated timeframe. The respondents, through their counsel, agreed that any representation filed by the petitioner would be duly considered by Respondent No. 2.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of GST at 18% for work contract services, as opposed to the 12% refund granted. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to a refund of GST at the rate of 18% for the work contract services provided. They sought permission to approach Respondent No. 2 with an appropriate representation, requesting the Court to direct a decision within a specific time frame. Respondent's contention: The respondents, represented by their counsel, submitted that if the petitioner files a representation, it will be duly considered by Respondent No. 2.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175737-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1046 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Maa Vindhya Vasini Constructions Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bidhan Chandra Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard Sri B. C. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had carried out certain work contract for the respondents and is entitled to refund of GST @ 18%, however, refund has been granted @ 12%. He submits that he has preferred a representation before the Respondent No.
He further submits that purpose of filing of the present writ petition shall stand served if the petitioner is permitted to approach the Respondent No.2 by way of appropriate representation, which may be directed to be decided within time frame fixed by this Court. Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that in the eventuality the petitioner files a representation the same shall be duly considered by the Respondent No.
In view of the a
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.