M/S Guatam Associates Near Hanuman Mandir New Tehri vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated January 21, 2020. The Court instructed respondent No. 2 to look into the matter and take an appropriate decision in accordance with the law as early as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not make any specific findings on the statutory duty of respondent No. 2 to pay GST liability or penalties, as the petitioner confined their prayer to a direction for decision on the representation. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the operative direction addressed the petitioner's confined prayer.
Facts
The petitioner, a contractor awarded works contracts by the Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency (respondent No. 2), filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to pay the GST liability, including penalties and financial losses, before the due date of the GST audit, January 28, 2020. The petitioner had made a representation to respondent No. 2 on January 21, 2020. The petitioner confined their prayer to a direction for respondent No. 2 to decide this representation. The High Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether respondent No. 2, as the awarding authority for works contracts, has a statutory duty to pay the GST liability incurred by the contractor (petitioner) on the bill amount. The petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 is under a statutory duty to pay the GST liability. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 2. Whether respondent No. 2 should be directed to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated January 21, 2020, concerning the payment of GST liability and other financial losses. The petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 should be directed to decide their representation. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPMS No. 623 of 2020 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.
Petitioner is a contractor who was awarded works contract by Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 is under a statutory duty to pay GST on the bill amount, which petitioner has to pay to the GST authorities. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following relief:- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to pay the GST liability including penalties/all other Financial Losses before 28th of January, 2020 i.e. before the due date of GST audit. (Annexure No. 4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has made a representation to respondent No. 2 on 21.01.2020. He, therefore, confines his prayer and submits that respondent No. 2 be directed to take decision on the said representation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
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.