Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, MANISH KUMAR, JJ.
M/S Vedic Projects Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. and Ors. - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 15178 OF 2019.
Decided On : 16-02-2023
For the Petitioner: Ram Raj.
For the Respondents: C.S.C.
Headnote:(A) Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 142(10) - Writ petition challenging the impugned order for refund of GST - Petitioner sought to quash the order and the Government policy formula for GST computation. - Court held that disputes regarding GST amount are subject to arbitration under Clause 34 of the agreement. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 14)
(B) Arbitration - The court stated that the petitioner has a remedy under the agreement's arbitration clause for disputes over refunds. (Paras 11, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a private construction company, contested the withholding of GST payment amounting to ₹43,20,988/-, executing works partially before and after the GST Act's enactment.
Findings of Court:
The writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merit. Disputes over refund claims could be addressed through arbitration.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the formula for GST calculation in the Government policy and the nature of the disputed GST refund amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims against the Government Order, thus affirming the arbitration clause as the proper procedure for disputes.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeks to challenge government orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner claims gst refund under the act 2017. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. state disputes gst refund amount claimed by petitioner. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court observes procedural aspects and agreements regarding disputes. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed; directs arbitration for disputes. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.
The present writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-
i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 02.04.2019, passed by the opposite party No. 4/ Superintending Engineer, Anusandhan Evam Niyojan (Barh) Mandal, Sichai Bhawan, Annexee, Lucknow, contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Writ Petition.
ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari setting aside sub para 2 of paragraph 2 of the Government Order dated 08.11.2017 whereby a formula, with rate of VAT has been introduced, that is, Rv-Rg and (Q) x (Rv-Rg) / Rv. A true copy of the Government order no. 1814/23- 10-2017-12(General)/2017 dated 08.11.2017 wherein impugned para 2 of paragraph 2 is included, is being filed as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition.
iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 02.04.2019, passed by the opposite party No. 4/Superintending Engineer, Anusandhan Evam Niyojan (Barh) Mandal, Sichai Bhawan, Annexee, Lucknow, contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Writ Petition.
iv. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the operation and implementation of the impugned para 2(2) of the Government Policy dated 08.11.2017, contained in Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition.
v. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay to the petitioner/service provider the Goods and Services Tax (GST) admittedly deposited by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 43,20,988/-.
vi. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the opposite parties to adhere to the State Government policy except the impugned para 2(2) of the Government Policy dated 08.11.2017 in respect of payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST).
vii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the opposite parties to pay market rate interest on Rs. 43,20,988/- arbitrarily and illegally withheld by them since 17.4.2018 and 18.8.2018 till the actual payment."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a private company and is engaged with civil construction work. The opposite party no. 5 i.e. Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, Varanasi on behalf of the State Government had floated tenders for construction of flood protection works at Ganga river near Village Chandrawati, Chobeypur, District Varanasi. The petitioner being the highest bidder was a service provider to the opposite parties and had executed the flood protection work at Ganga River, near Village Chandrawati, Chobeypur, District Varanasi. The agreement was executed by the petitioner was before the enactment of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 2017"). Some work executed by the petitioner was before the enactment of the Act 2017 and remaining part of the work was executed and completed after the Act, 2017 has came into existence w.e.f. 01.07.2017.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents are the recipient of the service rendered by the petitioner-Company and they are liable to pay Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as "G.S.T.") under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2017") on Reverse Charge Basis as the liability to pay G.S.T. is on the recipient of service provided by the
