GAYATRI PROJECTS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Gayatri Projects Ltd
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
N Sailo, J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. F. Lalengliana, the learned counsel for petitioner as well as Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Government Advocate who appears for the State respondents. With the consent of the parties, the case is taken up for final disposal at the motion stage.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that it is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying out the trade and business in various engineering works including road construction amongst others. An agreement was signed by the petitioner with the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, PWD Highway for widening to 2-Lane, re-alignment and Geometric Improvement from Km 11.00 to Km 114.618 of National Highway-44A in the State of Mizoram under Phase 'A' of SARDP-NE. The agreement was signed on 02.03.2011 (Annexure-C) and thereafter, the work allotted began to be executed by the petitioner. The modalities for executing the work was laid down by providing various milestones with the percentage of payments to be made on the agreed terms. The petitioner contends that the existing indirect taxes such as Excise Duty, Service Tax, Value Added Tax (VAT), etc., came to be replaced by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) w.e.f., 01.07.2017 and the current tax rate for Government Works is 12% of Gross Receipts and therefore, the petitioner would have to pay the same according to the GST Bills raised on or after 01.07.2017. However, the respondent authority in the Memorandum of Payments prepared on 11.07.2017 only made deductions towards Income Tax and Mizoram VAT without adding the GST at the rate of 12%. The petitioner, therefore, approached the respondent No. 5 through Communication dated 19.06.2017 (Annexure-G1) and thereafter, vide Communication dated 05.04.2018 (Annexure-G2) requesting the release of 12% on their Gross Bills raised after 01.07.2017 and to add and release the GST amount alongwith the bill for upcoming bills. However, as the respondent authority concerned failed to consider the same and take remedial steps, the petitioner is before this Court.
(3.) Xxx xxx xxx;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.