Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Held
The Court held that no writ of mandamus could be issued to the GST Authorities to prevent them from recovering the GST amount from the petitioner. The Court reasoned that it is undisputed that the GST liability is to be discharged by the petitioner in the first place. While it may be open to the petitioner to pass on that liability to respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5, his inability to recover the amount from them does not negate his primary obligation to the revenue. Therefore, the GST authorities are entitled to recover the amount from the petitioner. The Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his contractual remedies against respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5 for any outstanding amounts payable under the contract.
Facts
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal, executed civil works for respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5. GST liability was fastened on the petitioner for these supplies. The petitioner discharged this liability in part. The petitioner's contention is that the outstanding GST liability could not be fully discharged because respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5 had not paid the entire amount due under the contract, which included the GST component. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus from the High Court directing the GST authorities not to recover the outstanding GST amount from him during the pendency of his claim against respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5.
Key Issues
1. Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to the GST Authorities to refrain from recovering GST from the petitioner during the pendency of his claim against the contractees (respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5) for outstanding payments, including the GST component? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that since the contractees had not paid the full amount, including the GST liability, he was unable to discharge his full GST obligation. He sought to prevent recovery from him until the contractual dispute was resolved. Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that the GST liability is to be discharged by the petitioner in the first instance, irrespective of whether he can recover the same from the contractees. They argued that the petitioner's inability to recover from the contractees does not absolve him of his primary GST obligation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4185 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
Having heard Sri Hanuman Deen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, we find no good ground to offer any interference on merits, in the present writ petition.
The petitioner has executed a civil work for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. In view of supplies made by the petitioner, GST liability has been fastened on the petitioner. Petitioner has discharged the said liability, in part. As to the outstanding liability, the petitioner's defence is, respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 have not paid up the entire GST liability. Therefore, the petitioner has not been able to discharge his GST liability.
The defence is what it is. It being undisputed that the GST liability is to be discharged by the petitioner, in first place, because it may be open to the petitioner to pass on that liability to respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, no mandamus may be issued to the GST Authorities to not recover the amount of
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.