2023 (10) TMI 791 - HC - GST

Reimbursement of tax already paid by the petitioner - Scope of the contract / tender agreement - HELD THAT - The Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to expedite the reimbursement of tax already paid by the petitioner and to pay the differential tax directly to the account of the respondents 8 9. The respondents 8 9 are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner as the tax is to be paid to the Government and the amount to be paid also is also by the Government. The 6th respondent is directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 21.04.2023 and to take steps for getting the amounts due from the Government as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Dispute regarding reimbursement of GST, maintainability of Writ Petition, delay in settling GST difference, coercive steps by respondents, disposal of petitioner's representation.

Reimbursement of GST: The 6th respondent acknowledged the need for approval and payment of differential GST at 6%, which was increased from 12% effective 18.07.2022. The respondent took steps to settle the 6% difference cost, including seeking approval from higher authorities and corresponding with relevant officials for necessary orders and funds. Part payments with 12% GST had already been made for the work. The court directed respondents to expedite reimbursement of tax already paid by the petitioner and to pay the differential tax directly to the specified accounts.

Maintainability of Writ Petition: Despite the 6th respondent's initial contention that the Writ Petition was not maintainable, the court considered the facts presented in the counter affidavit. The respondent was directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 21.04.2023 promptly and take necessary steps to obtain the amounts due from the Government within six months from the date of the court's order.

Coercive Steps and Settlement Delay: Respondents 8 & 9 were instructed not to take any coercive actions against the petitioner, emphasizing that the tax payment is to be made to the Government and the amount is also to be paid by the Government. The court highlighted the importance of expeditiously settling the GST difference and ensuring timely payment to the petitioner without any undue delay.

Conclusion: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the outlined directions and observations, leading to the closure of connected Miscellaneous Petitions without imposing any costs. The judgment aimed to address the issues related to GST reimbursement, maintainability of the petition, avoidance of coercive measures, and timely resolution of the petitioner's representation.