2023 (10) TMI 1333 - HC - GST

Commanding the respondents to remit tax GST at the rate of 12% /18% on the work executed by the petitioner, in pursuance to the tender awarded by the 1st respondent - whether the respondents are duty bound to remit the tax of GST to the petitioner, depends on the interpretation of the terms of the contract / agreement between the petitioner and the respondent? - HELD THAT - This court is not exercising the jurisdiction of civil court in respect of the mutual rights / obligations of the petitioner and the respondents under the contract. This court will not determine the scope of the terms of contract entered between the petitioner and the respondents. In effect, in the present writ petition, the prayer is akin to claim for a decree in a money suit. This court does not exercise the jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of fact. If the petitioner is aggrieved for non payment of money by the respondents under the contract, the remedy lies somewhere else and not before this court. There are no substances and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the liability of the respondents to remit GST at specific rates to the petitioner for work executed under a tender contract, and the interpretation of the terms of the contract/agreement between the parties.

Issue 1: Liability to remit GST

The petitioner, a registered Class A Electrical Contractor, sought a mandamus to direct the respondents to remit GST at the rates of 12% and 18% for work executed under a tender contract. The petitioner claimed that the respondents failed to remit the GST amount owed to them, despite being the successful bidder for the project. The petitioner argued that the liability to remit GST depended on the terms of the contract/agreement between the parties. However, the court clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of fact regarding payment obligations under the contract. The court stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-payment, the remedy lies elsewhere, not before the court. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no substance in the petitioner's claim.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition as it lacked jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of fact regarding the payment obligations under the contract between the petitioner and the respondents. The court emphasized that the remedy for non-payment of money lies elsewhere and not within its jurisdiction.