2018 (2) TMI 1540 - HC - GST

Claim of 12% GST over the value of works contract - scope of terms of the agreement - Court noted that the appropriate authority, who has to answer the claim of the petitioner/Association was the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, but, he was not impleaded as a respondent - Held that - the Court directed the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to consider the representation given by the petitioner/Association and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner/Association. Though the Court would be fully justified in initiating action for contempt, considering the sensitivity of the matter and the members of the petitioner/Association, who are contractors, are put to hardship on account of the nebulous state of affairs, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to the respondent to consider the representations given by the petitioner/Association and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law - petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the appropriate authority in responding to the petitioner's claim.
2. Impleadment of necessary authorities as respondents.
3. Consideration of representations by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
4. Compliance with government guidelines in bill matters.
5. Direction to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to pass orders on the representations.
6. Contention of the Special Government Pleader regarding Central Government involvement.
7. Court's decision on initiating contempt action and providing an opportunity for compliance.

Analysis:
1. The Court acknowledged that the appropriate authority to address the petitioner's claim was the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, emphasizing the need for a specific response tailored to the issue raised by the petitioners, distinct from the Department of Highways and National Highways.

2. Recognizing the absence of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as a respondent, the Court directed the impleadment of the Secretary to Government and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the writ petitions to ensure their involvement in the proceedings.

3. Stressing the importance of responding to pending representations, the Court ordered the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to consider the petitioner's submissions and issue orders within four weeks, following a personal hearing with the authorized representative of the petitioner/Association.

4. The Court was presented with a Government Order outlining guidelines related to contractor bills, underscoring the significance of compliance with established procedures in financial matters.

5. In line with the directives, the Court instructed the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to evaluate the petitioner's representations and make decisions based on merit and legal requirements, with a specific timeline for resolution.

6. Despite the Special Government Pleader's argument regarding the Central Government's jurisdiction, the Court referenced the relevant Government Order and granted the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes the authority to make decisions in accordance with the law.

7. While the Court acknowledged the potential for contempt action, considering the impact on the contractors, it opted to provide the respondent with an additional opportunity to address the representations within two weeks, emphasizing the necessity for a fair hearing before passing final orders.

In conclusion, the Court's judgment focused on ensuring proper jurisdiction, impleading necessary authorities, compliance with guidelines, and providing a fair opportunity for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to address the petitioner's representations in a timely and lawful manner.

← Previous Next →