9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1232 - HC - GSTRefund of additional tax liability incurred by the petitioner in the light of GST law introduced w.e.f. 1.7.2017 onwards - HELD THAT - Reliance placed upon the order of this Court in M/S D.A. ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR DINESH KUMAR MISHRA VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH THE SECRETARY; CHIEF ENGINEER HASDEO BASIN; SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER; EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MANIYARI 2022 (12) TMI 1136 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT , wherein under identical set of facts, this Court has allowed the said writ petition. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s D.A. Enterprises, the writ petition as of now stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach respondents No.2 to 5 in terms of the order of the State Government dated 10.10.2018 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner is also required to produce before the authority concern necessary proof of the additional tax liability incurred on account of the introduction of the GST law within a period of one week - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Additional tax liability under GST law for contracts awarded before 1.7.2017. 2. Petitioner seeking reimbursement based on State Government's policy decision. 3. Respondent requiring fresh claim and proof of additional tax liability for consideration. Analysis: Issue 1: Additional tax liability under GST law for contracts awarded before 1.7.2017 The petitioner filed a writ petition concerning the additional tax liability arising due to the implementation of the GST law from 1.7.2017 onwards for a contract awarded before this date. The petitioner sought a refund of the additional tax paid, relying on the State Government's policy decision dated 10.10.2018, which aimed to reimburse contractors for such liabilities incurred before the introduction of the GST law. Issue 2: Petitioner seeking reimbursement based on State Government's policy decision The petitioner's case was supported by the State Government's policy decision mentioned in the order dated 10.10.2018. The petitioner's counsel referred to a previous judgment by the Court in a similar matter (WPT No.94 of 2020) where relief was granted to the petitioner, establishing a precedent for such claims to be allowed. The Court acknowledged the reliance on the previous judgment and the State Government's policy, indicating a favorable view towards the petitioner's claim for reimbursement. Issue 3: Respondent requiring fresh claim and proof of additional tax liability for consideration The State Counsel, representing the respondents, agreed to consider the petitioner's claim for reimbursement subject to the submission of a fresh claim supported by relevant proof of the additional tax liability incurred. The Court, considering the submissions from both parties and the precedent set by the previous judgment in a similar case, disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner was directed to approach the concerned authorities with a fresh claim and necessary proof of the additional tax liability within a week. The respondents were instructed to scrutinize the claim and make a decision within 90 days from the receipt of the claim, in accordance with the State Government's order dated 10.10.2018. In conclusion, the Court's decision allowed the petitioner to pursue the reimbursement claim for additional tax liability incurred due to the introduction of the GST law, subject to providing the required documentation and following the procedures outlined in the State Government's policy decision.
|
