M/S Patil Construction And Infrastructure LTD Through Authorized Officer Suryakant Dasrao Patil vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
Held
The Court held that the grievance of the petitioner was under active consideration by the State Government. As such, the Court found it unnecessary to decide the matter on merits. The Court directed the respondent No. 3 (presumably the relevant authority within the State Government) to abide by the statement made in paragraph 11 of the affidavit in reply. This statement indicated that the petitioner's claim for an increase in tender cost due to the imposition of GST was being considered. The Court further directed that a decision should be taken expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of the order. The writ petition was disposed of without any costs.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an action or order related to the imposition of 12% GST. The petitioner contended that the GST was imposed midway through two works, increasing the tender cost from the previously applicable 5% VAT. The State, in its affidavit in reply, stated that the petitioner's claim for an increase in tender cost due to the imposition of 12% GST from July 1, 2017, was under active consideration by the State Government, as evidenced by a circular issued on August 19, 2017. The High Court noted that the issue was similar to another pending writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an increase in tender cost due to the imposition of 12% GST midway through the execution of two works, when the original tender was based on 5% VAT? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the imposition of GST midway through the contract significantly increased their costs, as the original tender was based on a lower VAT rate. They sought an adjustment in the tender cost to account for this additional tax burden. Revenue/State's contention: The State acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the increased cost due to GST and stated that the matter was under active consideration by the State Government, referencing a circular issued on August 19, 2017, as evidence of this consideration. The State did not contest the petitioner's claim on merits but indicated it was being reviewed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
FINAL ORDER : . Mr. Sakolkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the issue involved in the present writ petition is similar to the issue involved in Writ Petition No. 10775 of 2018. 2. The State has filed affidavit in reply. Para 11 of the affidavit in reply reads thus : “11) I say and submit that, the claim of the petitioner for increase in tender cost on account of imposition of 12% GST with effect
2 wp 10757.18 from 01.07.2017 I. e. midway through the two works in question with due consideration
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 Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.