Refund of GST must be calculated on a case-by-case basis for works executed pre-GST, ensuring adjustment for related differential taxes.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayers:

"(a) Issue a writ or such other order in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to refund the differential GST amount (being the difference between GST and VAT) paid by the petitioner for each of the works contract / composite supply executed by the petitioner and tabulated at Annexure - A, as per the representations dated 12.06.2023 produced at Annexure - C (colly) and dated 24.07.2023 produced at Annexure - C - 19 (colly) given by the petitioner to respective respondent - employers.

(b) Issue a writ or such other order directing the Respondent No.1 - State Govt, to issue a circular/policy to address the issue of payment of GST on works contract which are executed under VAT regime wherein GST is not paid by the Respondent - Contractors to the GST department.

(c) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice."

2. Heard Shri D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel for Shri Naveen G.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri M. Rajakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri Dakshina Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

3. The issue in the lis is with regard to refund of GST. The controversy is, what schedule of rates is made applicable in the contracts entered into between the petitioner and the statutory departments.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the contracts though were entered into at a later point in time i.e., after the regime of the GST, they were at the old scheduled rates under the KVAT regime, which is disputed by the respondents contending that the schedule of rates were changed in February-2018 and therefore, the contract was entered into after the change in schedule of rates, in some of the cases, at least.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has no right to seek refund on the strength of what is projected before the court.

6. The learned Senior counsel would now submit that the co-ordinate bench has considered every argument of these respondents and has passed a detailed order.

7. The co-ordinate bench in WP.No.9721/2019 c/w others disposed on 11.04.2023 has held as follows:

"11. It is an undisputed fact that the Petitioners herein are class-I contractors who have entered into 'works contract with various State Govt agencies and that the agreements were entered into at a point of time when the KVAT Act and Finance Act 1994 were in force It is also not in dispute that the Petitioners are either covered under Composition scheme or regular VAT assessment and that on 01.07.2017 when the GST Act was implemented pan India, the sad works contract was treated as "deemed service" and the Petitioners became liable to pay GST. It is this differential tax amount arising out of change in tax regime from VAT to GST which cast a additional tax burden on the Petitioners, which is the subject matter of the present petitions.

12. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to the State Government Circular dated 03.01.2020, which reads as under:-

"With reference to the above, your request for clarification on Tax calculation for the pre- GST period and post-GST period in the ruining bills of works has been examined by the GM (PF), KUIDFC and has suggested the following procedure for calculating Taxes for pre-GST period and post-CST period as follows:

1. Calculate the balance works to be completed in the original contact.

2. Derive the rate of materials, KVAT items required to complete the balance works.

3. Deduct the "KVAT" amount from those materials and the ser