Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (6) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (6) TMI 93 - HC - GST


Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of GST on works contracts executed prior to 01.07.2017.
2. Jurisdiction of respondents to issue notices or take coercive steps under GST Act.
3. Consideration of representations by the respondents regarding differential tax burden under GST.

Summary:

Issue 1: Applicability of GST on works contracts executed prior to 01.07.2017

The petitioners, class-I contractors, contended that they entered into works contracts with various State Government agencies under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) and Finance Act 1994, prior to the implementation of GST on 01.07.2017. They were assessed under either the Composition scheme (COT scheme) or regular VAT assessment. With the introduction of GST, these works contracts were treated as "deemed service," and the petitioners became liable to pay GST at 18% from 01.07.2017 to 21.08.2017 and at 12% thereafter. The differential tax burden due to the transition from VAT to GST imposed a significant financial burden on the petitioners.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of respondents to issue notices or take coercive steps under GST Act

The petitioners sought a declaration that the GST Act provisions are inapplicable to works contracts where services were provided prior to 01.07.2017. They argued that the respondents (Nos. 4 to 8) lacked jurisdiction to issue notices or take coercive steps under the GST Act for such contracts. The respondents contended that for works contracts executed prior to 01.07.2017, the GST Act is inapplicable, and only the portion of the work executed after 01.07.2017 would be taxed under GST. They maintained that the onus was on the petitioners to declare and pay taxes accordingly under both regimes.

Issue 3: Consideration of representations by the respondents regarding differential tax burden under GST

The petitioners argued that the differential tax burden should be absorbed by the respondents, similar to practices adopted by other states and central government departments. They cited instances where other states and departments absorbed the additional tax burden to ensure contractors were not financially disadvantaged. The petitioners requested the court to direct the respondents to consider their representations and absorb the differential tax burden.

Judgment:

The court acknowledged the significant financial burden imposed on the petitioners due to the transition from VAT to GST. It referred to State Government Circulars dated 03.01.2020 and 14.12.2020, which provided guidelines for calculating taxes for pre-GST and post-GST periods. The court also considered similar judgments from other High Courts, which supported the petitioners' contentions.

The court issued the following directions:
1. Calculate works executed pre-GST and payments received under the KVAT regime.
2. Assess payments received pre-GST under the KVAT regime.
3. Calculate balance works completed post-GST and derive the rate of materials.
4. Deduct KVAT amount from materials and add applicable GST.
5. Determine input credit on materials and set off against output GST.
6. Calculate the tax difference for balance works executed post-GST.
7. Decide whether the agreement needs to be changed based on the tax difference.
8. Sign supplementary agreements for revised GST-inclusive work value and reimburse differential tax amounts.
9. Petitioners to submit comprehensive representations within 4 weeks.
10. Respondents to consider and dispose of representations within 8 weeks.
11. Petitioners allowed to file GST returns without interest or penalty.
12. GST authorities directed not to take precipitative action for 6 months.
13. Liberty reserved for petitioners to challenge any subsequent decisions.

The petitions were disposed of with these directions to ensure fair and just treatment of the petitioners concerning the differential tax burden under GST.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates