M/S Link Enterprises vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the matter. It acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the imposition of 12% GST on a contract executed prior to the enforcement of the relevant provisions and the pendency of his representations. The Court also noted the petitioner's reliance on a judgment from the Madras High Court. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition by directing the competent authority to decide on the petitioner's representations dated October 5, 2017, and September 14, 2018. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering the impact of the Madras High Court's ratio. The decision is to be taken within two months from the production of the certified copy of the order. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court chose to remand the matter for consideration.
Facts
The petitioner entered into a contract bond on December 31, 2016, for the construction of a steel bridge. The contract was executed prior to the enforcement of the 12% Goods and Services Tax (GST). The petitioner deposited a security of ₹41,23,038/- for the work. The petitioner is aggrieved by the imposition of 12% GST on the contract value. He had made representations to the respondent authorities on October 5, 2017, and September 14, 2018, objecting to the GST imposition, but these have not been considered. The petitioner relies on a judgment from the Madras High Court dealing with a similar controversy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay 12% GST on a contract executed prior to the enforcement of the amended provision imposing 12% GST? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the contract was executed before the enforcement of the 12% GST provisions, and therefore, he should not be liable for it. He relied on a judgment from the Madras High Court dated October 5, 2017, which he contended covered his identical situation. The petitioner sought a decision on his pending representations regarding the GST imposition. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, their action of potentially imposing GST on the contract implies a contention that the petitioner is liable.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPMS No. 3180 of 2018 Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
The petitioner has entered into a contract and executed a contract bond on 31.12.2016 being numbered as 29/SE-9/2014-15 dated 20.12.2014, and he has deposited a security for the execution of the work under the contract to the tune of `41,23,038/-. The work which the petitioner was supposed to perform under the contract was on the basis of the declaration, which was made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State for construction of a steel bridge from Raipur Kumlaada Kaddukhal to Khairiman Singh.
The basic controversy which the petitioner has tried to raise in the writ petition is pertaining to the imposition of the GST at the rate of 12% on the said contract.
He has submitted that as the contract stood executed on 01.07.2017, i.e. even much prior to the enforcement of the provisions of the 12% GST, to be included in the estimated cost, he has submitted that raising his grievance pertaining to the imposition of the GST and the rate at which it would be levied he 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.