Dularchand Mahto vs. Damodar Valley Corporation Through Its Chairman
Facts
The petitioner, Dularchand Mahto, was awarded a work order by the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) on September 15, 2016, for jungle clearance at Konar dam. The petitioner participated in the NIT and quoted a price without including GST, as the NIT and work order did not make any provision for GST. The petitioner's grievance is that DVC intends to deduct the GST amount from his bills for the work, which would result in a significant financial loss. He made a representation to the respondent no. 2, the Sr. Divisional Engineer (Civil), T.R. Division, DVC, but received no response. The respondents stated that the terms of the NIT were not on record, making it unclear who was liable for GST payment.
Held
The High Court, without entering into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. It granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 2, the Sr. Divisional Engineer (Civil), T.R. Division, DVC, on the issue of GST payment. Upon receipt of this representation, respondent no. 2 was directed to provide the petitioner with a due opportunity of hearing and then take an informed decision regarding the GST liability. The court expected this decision to be made preferably within four weeks from the date of receiving the representation. The specific question of who is liable for GST was not decided on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the Goods and Services Tax (GST) out of their own funds and not deduct it from the petitioner's bills, considering the NIT and work order did not make provisions for GST? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the Letter of Intent-cum-Work Order, issued on September 15, 2016, and the NIT dated July 28, 2016, did not include any provision for GST, the respondents should bear the GST cost and not deduct it from his bills. He contended that deducting GST would cause him huge financial loss. He relied on the absence of GST provisions in the contract documents. Respondents' contention: The respondents submitted that the terms and conditions of the concerned NIT were not placed on record, and therefore, it was unclear who was liable to pay the GST. They did not present any arguments on the merits of the GST liability.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.452 of 2020 ----- Dularchand Mahto.
.......... Petitioner. -Versus-
Damodar Valley Corporation, through its Chairman, Office at DVC Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata-700054 (West Bengal).
The Sr. Divisional Engineer (Civil), T. R. Division, DVC, Konar, District Hazaribagh.
.......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the DVC : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate ----- Order No.02
Date: 24.02.2020 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay the amount of goods and service tax (in short ‘GST’) out of their own fund and not to deduct the said amount from the bill presented by the petitioner in relation to the work in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was issued a Letter of Intent-cum-Work Order vide Letter No.DVC/TK/P-1/-351 dated 15th September, 2016 by the respondent no.2 in pursuance of NIT No.DVC/TK/P-1/e-Procurement/-214 dated 28th July, 2016 for the work “Jungle clearance of dam slope a
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 Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.