M/S Rbippl And Srcc (Jv) Gwalior Bhagwati Colony Morar Gwalior Through Authorised Signatory Arvind S vs. The Municipal Council Bhind
Held
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the respondent, Municipal Council, Bhind. The Court ordered the respondent to comply with the directions contained in the coordinate bench's order dated October 6, 2023, passed in W.P. No. 24647 of 2023, mutatis mutandis. This implies that the Municipal Council, Bhind, must consider the petitioner's claim for GST reimbursement. If the claimed amount is undisputed and due, it should be released. Alternatively, if there are any legal impediments to releasing the claim, the respondent must pass a speaking order assigning reasons for declining the claim within 30 days of receiving the representation. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must adhere to departmental circulars and orders, and in cases of inaction or non-compliance, courts can direct them to act in accordance with established guidelines or precedents.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s RBIPPL and SRCC (JV) Gwalior, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior. The petitioner sought reimbursement of GST payment at 2.85% of the total contract value from the respondent, the Municipal Council, Bhind. The petitioner contended that prior to GST, works contracts had different tax liabilities. Following the introduction of GST, the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Madhya Pradesh, issued an order on October 23, 2020, allowing reimbursement of certain GST percentages on the total contract value to contractors. The petitioner's grievance was that the Municipal Council, Bhind, had failed to comply with this order and reimburse the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent, Municipal Council, Bhind, is obligated to reimburse the petitioner for GST paid at 2.85% of the total contract value, in accordance with the order dated October 23, 2020, issued by the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Madhya Pradesh? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order dated October 23, 2020, mandates reimbursement of GST on works contracts. They further relied on a coordinate bench's order dated October 6, 2023, in W.P. No. 24647 of 2023, which directed the respondent authorities to consider and decide on the balance GST amount claimed by the petitioner, releasing it if undisputed or passing a speaking order if there was a legal impediment. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Per: Justice Anand Pathak
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed being crestfallen by the action/ inaction on the part of the respondent whereby respondent/ Municipal Council did not reimburse the GST payment of the petitioner @ 2.85% of the total contract value.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Goods and Services Tax (GST) came into play on 1st July, 2017 and prior to it, works contracts were not having the liability of payment of service tax at all and VAT tax to some extent. However, with the promulgation of tax relief, GST tax over such activities came into force. To wriggle out such complication, the Department of Urban Development and Housing Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 23-10-2020 (Annexure P-6
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 Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.