9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 351 - HC - GSTRemission of GST - Works Contract - petitioner s main contention appears to be that going by the terms and conditions of Ext.P2 works contract agreement that the petitioner is only the subject provider, who is not liable to pay GST in respect of 20 items of services mentioned in Ext.P2 as per the terms of the contract therein and that as per the said terms and conditions of Ext.P2, the 3rd respondent being the service recipient is legally obliged to remit GST in respect of the said 20 services in compliance with the terms and conditions of Ext.P2 works contract. HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that there is no necessity for this Court to adjudicate the abovesaid contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the merits of the matter. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner has not so far responded to the impugned notice as per Exts.P3 and P4 and it is for the petitioner to immediately respond to the same by giving his written submissions/written objections in the matter without any delay, at any rate, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. It is also ordered that the 5th respondent will have to issue notices to the petitioner as well as to R3 (M/s. Hindustan Newsprint Ltd.) and R4 (who is stated to be the liquidator of R3 Company) and the 5th respondent in its notice may direct the 4th respondent to give a report regarding the factual aspects raised by the petitioner on the basis of Ext. P2 and also the constitutional contentions raised by the petitioner - Thereafter, respondent No.5 will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, R3 and R4 and after adverting to and considering the various contentions of the petitioner as noted and contentions and submissions, if any of the other parties concerned, may render a considerable decision on the matters raised in the impugned Exts. P3 and P4 notices, without much delay. Application disposed off.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of terms of service contracts regarding GST liability. 2. Legal obligations of service provider and service recipient in GST remittance. 3. Liability of liquidator to pay GST for the company under liquidation. 4. Validity of penalty notices issued under State Goods and Services Act. Interpretation of terms of service contracts regarding GST liability: The petitioner, a service provider, entered into agreements with a government enterprise for various services. The petitioner remitted GST for services mentioned in one contract (Exhibit P1) but not for services in another contract (Exhibit P2). The petitioner argued that as per the terms of the contracts, the liability to pay GST was on the service recipient for services in Exhibit P2. Citing legal precedents, the petitioner contended that unless explicitly stated in the contract, the burden of GST payment does not shift to the service provider. The High Court noted the petitioner's contentions but emphasized the need for the petitioner to respond to the notices issued before further adjudication. Legal obligations of service provider and service recipient in GST remittance: The petitioner argued that as per Section 51(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, the service recipient (3rd respondent) is obligated to pay GST to the government. The petitioner contended that the notices demanding GST payment were unjustified as the terms of the contracts stipulated the service recipient's liability for GST payment. The Court directed the petitioner to respond to the notices and ordered further actions to ascertain the factual aspects raised by the petitioner regarding GST liability. Liability of liquidator to pay GST for the company under liquidation: The petitioner invoked a legal judgment stating that a liquidator of a company under liquidation is considered a dealer under tax laws and cannot evade the liability to pay GST applicable to the company. The Court acknowledged this contention but refrained from making a decision on the matter, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to respond to the notices and provide written submissions within a specified timeframe. Validity of penalty notices issued under State Goods and Services Act: The petitioner challenged penalty notices issued under the State Goods and Services Act, contending that the demands were unwarranted due to the contractual obligations shifting GST liability to the service recipient. The Court directed the petitioner to respond to the notices promptly and ordered a comprehensive review of the contentions raised by all parties involved. The Court instructed the respondent to finalize the matter within a stipulated timeframe after considering all submissions. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the case with directions for the petitioner to respond to the notices and for further examination of the contractual terms and legal obligations regarding GST liability. The Court emphasized the need for all parties to present their arguments and for the respondent to make a decision within a specified timeline.
|
