M/S Maa Vindhya Vasini Constructions, Through Its Partner Om Prakash Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Held
The Court observed that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to approach Respondent No. 7 by filing an appropriate representation within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court expected Respondent No. 7 to consider all aspects of the matter and decide the representation by a speaking and reasoned order, preferably within four weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not make any findings on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the GST refund rate.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Maa Vindhya Vasini Constructions, represented by its partner Om Prakash Tripathi, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner had undertaken work contract for the respondents and claimed entitlement to a refund of GST at 18%. However, the refund was processed at 12%. The petitioner had previously submitted a representation to Respondent No. 7 regarding this discrepancy. The petitioner sought permission to approach Respondent No. 7 again with an appropriate representation and requested a time-bound decision. The respondents' counsel indicated that any representation filed by the petitioner would be duly considered by Respondent No. 7.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of GST at 18% for work contract services rendered, as opposed to the 12% refund granted. 2. Whether the Court should direct Respondent No. 7 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to a refund of GST at 18% for the work contract and that their grievance had not been adequately addressed. They sought the Court's intervention to allow them to file a fresh representation and for a directive to Respondent No. 7 to decide it expeditiously. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, stated that if the petitioner files a representation, it will be duly considered by Respondent No. 7. No specific arguments were made regarding the GST rate or the refund amount.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:176101-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1048 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Maa Vindhya Vasini Constructions, Through Its Partner Om Prakash Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bidhan Chandra Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Saurabh Pratap Singh 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.7 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 sh
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.