SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1457

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
Md. Muslim Ali, Son of Late Makbul Ali – Petitioner 
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent 
W.P(C) No. 5247 of 2022
Decided on : 06-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Assisted by Mr R.J. Das, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. Advocate General, Assam

In works contracts, the last recipient of services must pay GST under the reverse charge mechanism, and failure to include GST in payment processes violates both contract terms and statutory obligations.

Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Assam Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Procurement under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana - Claim for payment of GST Component - Contractor submitted bids exclusive of GST, and authorities improperly deducted GST instead of including it - As per the reverse charge mechanism under GST, PWD as the last recipient is liable to pay GST - Directions issued to release GST payment and follow applicable procedures. (Paras 1, 9, 12, 13)

(B) Compliance with Tender Conditions - Contractual obligations must adhere to stipulated conditions; in this case, GST was to be handled per the tender requirements, and failure to do so constitutes an infringement of rights. (Paras 3, 5, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered civil contractor, claimed payment for executed works under PMGSY as the authorities deducted GST from his running bills instead of including it, thereby making him liable for a tax he could not pay without the relevant funds. The dispute arose from the respondent's contention that the GST component should not be included based on tender specifications and the statutory obligations.

Findings of Court:
The claim is allowed, directing the authorities to rectify their actions by following prescribed guidelines and ensuring payment of GST due to the contractor.

Issues: Whether the GST component was to be paid by the respondent on behalf of the petitioner under the reverse charge mechanism as stipulated in relevant GST laws; whether the authorities acted in accordance with the tender requirements regarding GST.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the statutory provisions, specifically regarding the reverse charge mechanism, the PWD, being the last recipient of benefits, bears the responsibility for GST payments. The previous deductions made by the authorities were unlawful and violated the contractual terms as well as statutory obligations.

Result: The writ petition is allowed, ordering the respondents to release the GST component to the petitioner and to follow appropriate procedures.

Judgement Key Points

The parties executed the contract on 13th June 2019, as indicated in the document (!) .


Table of Content
1. factual background regarding the contract work and gst. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's arguments regarding gst payments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's observations on the respondent's compliance with gst laws. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court's directive for procedure compliance under applicable categories. (Para 12)
5. conclusion directing authorities to follow prescriptive actions. (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

The petitioner before this Court is a registered Civil Contractor with the PWD (Roads), Assam. The petitioner has executed several works for the department and has earned good reputation in his line of work. Since the year 2000, the Government of India has initiated a scheme “Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana”(PMGSY) to strengthen roads in the rural areas of the country for boosting economic activities. The scheme is fully sponsored by the Central Government under the Ministry of Rural Development. These Village roads are constructed as per the specifications of the Indian Road Congress (IRC), which is the Apex body of Highway Engineers in the country. The PWD (Border Roads), Government of Assam floated a tender by electronic process on 18.01.2019 in respect of construction of road namely “L 138- Paschimchaysimana to Baladmari via Rahmania MEM, Barpeta (package No. AS 01211)” in the Barpeta and other Districts of Assam under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), 2018-2019, Batch-I. The tender was invited in item rate bid wise. The work for construction of the road also included maintenance of the road for five years. The item rate bids were invited by the department by the electronic tendering system by the tender notice dated 18.01.2019. The bill of quantities giving item wise quantities for the work to be executed was also included. The bidders were required to fill up the rate and total amount. The last date for the receipt of the tender through e-tendering was 04.02.2019 till 1600 hours. The bid was to be submitted item wise as per attached proforma on the bill of quantities. The petitioner submitted his bid pursuant to the e-tendering process. The Petitioner submitted his bid for the above work for Rs.17,24,37,355/- which included Rs.1,02,72,000/- for maintenance. Upon evaluation of the bids received, the bid offered by the petitioner was shortlisted as the lowest bid. And thereafter, letter of acceptance was issued by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner on 08.03.2019.The petitioner was intimated that the tender was accepted for work for five years with the follow-up terms and conditions. Pursuant to the letter of acceptance, a contract agreement was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondent on 13.06.2019. On the same date, the Work order dated 13.06.2019 was issued. The time for completion of the work indicated was 12 months. Subsequently, the period for completion of work was extended due to the covid-19 pandemic situation which had engulfed the nation during the period 2020 to 2022.

2. As per procedure from time to time, the petitioner raised his running bills and demanded for payment in respect of the works completed. These running bills were prepared after the measurement of works completed by the department. By bill number RACC/IV/PMGSY/129 dated 25.03.2021, the department prepared running bill of Rs. 9,34,19,141/-. Payment for an amount of Rs. 7,43,15,546/- had already been released to the petitioner and after deduction of the same, balance amount of Rs. 1,21,035,95/- was paid to the petitioner. However, while preparing the running bills, the authorities did not add the GST payable to the billed amount @ 12%.

3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner urges before the court that under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 and the Assam Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, the structure under the scheme of the Act, in respect of the services rendered by the petitioner the payment of GST has to be paid by the last recipient of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top