Ms Masoom Ali And Company vs. National Highway Authority And Infrastructure Development Corporation LTD
Facts
The petitioner was awarded a contract for civil construction work by the National Highway Authority and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHAIDCL). The petitioner contends that NHAIDCL deducted GST twice from their bills. This fact of double deduction is admitted by NHAIDCL's counsel. However, NHAIDCL's stand is that the initially deducted GST amount was refunded, and only the second deduction has been retained. The petitioner is challenging an order dated 23.07.2025 issued by the Manager (Finance), Regional Office, Dehradun. NHAIDCL's counsel stated that the petitioner had made a representation to the General Manager, Regional Office, Dehradun, and a decision would be taken within fifteen days.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by taking the statement made by the respondent's counsel on record. The Court directed the General Manager, Regional Office, Dehradun, to decide the representation made by the petitioner, in accordance with the law, within fifteen days from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the double GST deduction or the specific amount in dispute, as the matter was resolved based on the respondent's undertaking to decide the representation promptly. The core issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund was implicitly deferred to the decision of the General Manager.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the GST amount deducted twice from their bills, as per the law governing GST and contract payments? The petitioner argued that GST was deducted twice from their bills, a fact admitted by the respondent. The petitioner sought relief concerning this double deduction. The respondent (NHAIDCL) contended that while a double deduction occurred, the first deducted amount was refunded, and only the second deduction was retained. They further submitted that the petitioner had made a representation to the General Manager, Regional Office, Dehradun, and a decision would be rendered within fifteen days.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025:UHC:11224-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMB/997/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate (through V.C.) assisted by Mr. Raunak Pant, Advocate for the respondent.
Petitioner was awarded a contract for civil construction work by National Highway Authority and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHAIDCL).
The employer (NHAIDCL) deducted certain amount as GST from the bills payable to petitioner. In this writ petition, petition contends that GST amount was deducted twice from his bills, which fact is admitted by Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate appearing for NHAIDCL.
The stand taken by Mr. Naresh Pant, however, is that the earlier amount deducted as GST was refunded, and only the amount deducted for second time, has been retained by NHAIDCL.
Petitioner is challenging an order dated 23.07.2025 issued by Manager (Finance), Regional Office, Dehradun. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate submits that since petitioner has
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 Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.