Shankar Engineers And Contractors Through Its Proprietor Samir Prakash Patil vs. The Union Of INDIA And Others
Held
The Court noted the submissions from both the petitioner and the Railway Department. Crucially, the Railway Department, through its counsel, made a statement that GST had not been deducted from the petitioner, referencing Railway Department guidelines dated 27.10.2017. The Court observed that a supplementary agreement was to be executed between the petitioner and the Railways. The Court directed that this supplementary agreement be executed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months, provided there were no other impediments. Based on these observations and statements, the writ petition was disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that where parties to a contract, including a government entity, make statements regarding factual matters like tax deductions and agree to formalize their arrangement through a supplementary agreement, the Court will facilitate the execution of such agreements and dispose of the matter based on these undertakings.
Facts
The petitioner, Shankar Engineers and Contractors, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. The dispute appears to involve a contract with the Railway Department. The petitioner and the Railway Department indicated that a supplementary agreement would be executed. The petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner would approach the Railway within a week. The Railway Department, referencing its guidelines dated 27.10.2017, made a statement that GST had not been deducted from the petitioner. The Court directed that the supplementary agreement be executed expeditiously, preferably within three months, if no other impediment existed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Railway Department has deducted GST from the petitioner, which is a question of fact and law. The petitioner's contention is that GST has been deducted, leading to this petition. The Railway Department, however, stated that GST has not been deducted, citing its internal guidelines dated 27.10.2017. The Court needed to ascertain the factual position regarding the deduction of GST. The arguments presented by the petitioner and the revenue (represented by the Railway Department) revolved around this factual assertion. No specific provisions of the GST Act were explicitly debated in the provided text, but the core issue pertains to the applicability and deduction of GST under a contractual arrangement.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1 WRIT PETITION NO.8815 OF 2018 SHANKAR ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SAMIR PRAKASH PATIL VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Petitioner :Mr. Gaikwad Pramod S Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. B. Deshpande and Mr. Dwarkadas S.Ladda Advocate for respondents 2 to 4: Mr. N. M . Navandar Addl. GP for the State: Mr. P. S. Patil CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ. DATE : 11th March, 2019 PER COURT :
We have heard Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Navandar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4, Mr. Ladda, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. Also.
It is submitted by the petitioner and the Railway Department that the supplementary agreement would be executed.
Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel submits that petitioner would approach the Railway within a week.
In view of the guidelines of the Railway 1/2
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.