2024 (7) TMI 419 - HC - GST

Seeking mandamus for additional GST payment from U.P. Expressways Industrial Development Authority - petitioner has already made a detailed representation before respondent No. 4 but till date, the representation of the petitioner has not been addressed by the authority - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The respondents states that he has no objection if the court relegates the matter to respondent No. 4 - Joint Commissioner, O/o the Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, to examine the matter as per law. The writ petition is disposed off with an observation that if the petitioner moves a fresh representation within a week's time before respondent No. 4 - Joint Commissioner, O/o the Commissioner CGST and Central Excise.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking mandamus for additional GST payment from U.P. Expressways Industrial Development Authority.
2. Allegation of arbitrary and illegal action by UPEIDA for not paying revised GST rate.
3. Delay in addressing petitioner's representation by the authority.
4. Consent by UPEIDA's counsel to relegate the matter to Joint Commissioner for examination.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered firm under the GST regime, participated in a bid by U.P. Expressways Industrial Development Authority (UPEIDA) for road construction. Despite contract revisions, final payment approval included 12% GST, while the rate had increased to 18%. Petitioner sought the additional 6% GST, alleging UPEIDA's actions as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner's detailed representation remains unaddressed by the authority, prompting the petition for mandamus.

2. UPEIDA's counsel expressed no objection to relegate the matter to the Joint Commissioner for examination. The High Court, considering the circumstances, disposed of the writ petition with the condition that the petitioner submits a fresh representation to the Joint Commissioner. The court expects the Joint Commissioner to consider the representation strictly in accordance with the law within three weeks from the date of the court order.

This judgment highlights the importance of adherence to GST regulations in contractual agreements and the recourse available to parties in case of disputes regarding GST payments. The court's decision to allow the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for examination by the Joint Commissioner demonstrates a procedural approach to resolving the issue while upholding legal principles.