2025 (4) TMI 233 - HC - GST

Entitlement for reimbursement of the Service Tax/GST - works completed and billed prior to the implementation of the GST regime on July 1 2017 but paid during the GST regime - HELD THAT - The report has been prepared by the Superintendent Engineer Presidency Circle PWD and has been approved by the Chief Engineer Head Quarter Public Works Directorate Government of West Bengal and Chief Engineer (South Zone) PWD Nodal Officer of Singur Project. Therefore it will be too late for the respondent now to contend that the sanction was a post facto sanction and therefore the question of payment of the amount to the contractor would not arise. This stand taken in the written instruction given to the senior officer is wholly contrary to the stand taken by the department. Thus in the aforementioned document/report there is one other document containing revised demand of fund for payment for GST in connection with the work as prepared by the Executive Engineer Bankura Highway Department dated 14.02.2020. This document contains a tabulated statement for first phase and in column No. 10 it has been mentioned Progress expenditure against Service Tax/GST upto date . In column No. 11 it has been mentioned that Expenditure (work Service TAX/GST) during previous year. Column No. 12 states Progress expenditure (work Service Tax/GST) upto date . Finally in the remarks column it has been mentioned that the fund may be placed to Executive Engineer Hooghly Highway Division No. 1 PW (Roads) Directorate. All these documents clearly show that the claims made by the appellants were never denied or disputed by the department rather accepted and supported by the department and the reason pleaded was lack of funds. Therefore the respondent cannot wriggle out of the liability to make payment to the appellants. There will be a direction upon the respondent department to make payment of GST which has been estimated by the appellant which is Rs. 68, 98, 565 in the case of M/s. Rajlaxmi Construction and Rs. 34, 95, 220/- in the case of M/s. Biswas Enterprise within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order. Conclusion - The administrative or funding delays do not negate the legal entitlement to reimbursement of taxes paid under a subsequent tax regime when works were completed and billed under a previous regime. Appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered by the Court was whether the appellants were entitled to reimbursement of Service Tax or GST for the works completed and billed prior to the implementation of the GST regime on July 1, 2017, but paid during the GST regime.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

The issue revolves around the transition from the Service Tax regime to the GST regime, which subsumed various indirect taxes, including Service Tax. Under the previous regime, Service Tax was levied at 15%, whereas under the GST regime, a 12% GST (6% CGST + 6% SGST) applies. The legal framework necessitates understanding the implications of this transition on contracts and payments that straddle both regimes.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Court examined the documents and affidavits submitted, particularly focusing on the admissions made by the department in their affidavit-in-opposition. The department acknowledged that the works were completed and bills raised before the GST regime commenced, but payments were delayed due to lack of funds. The Court noted that the department had reimbursed Service Tax for some bills and acknowledged the need to pay GST for others, as evidenced by the Note Sheet prepared by the Executive Engineer and communications from the Public Works Department.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The Court relied heavily on the Note Sheet dated February 14, 2020, which detailed the approval and fund allocation for payments, including Service Tax and GST reimbursements. The Note Sheet outlined the amounts to be reimbursed to the appellants and confirmed that the department had accepted the claims but delayed payment due to funding issues. Additionally, communications from the Public Works Department corroborated the appellants' claims.

Application of Law to Facts:

The Court applied the principles of the transition from Service Tax to GST, recognizing that the appellants were entitled to reimbursement of taxes paid under the new regime for works completed under the old regime. The Court emphasized that the department's admissions and documentation supported the appellants' entitlement to reimbursement.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The department's argument that the sanction for payment was post facto and thus not binding was dismissed by the Court. The Court found this position inconsistent with the department's previous admissions and the documentation provided. The department's claim of lack of funds was not considered a valid reason to deny reimbursement.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that the appellants were entitled to the reimbursement of GST as claimed. The department's admissions and documentation provided a clear basis for this entitlement, and the delay in payment was attributed to administrative and funding issues rather than any legal or factual dispute over the appellants' claims.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:

The Court noted, "All these documents clearly show that the claims made by the appellants were never denied or disputed by the department, rather accepted and supported by the department and the reason pleaded was lack of funds."

Core Principles Established:

The judgment reinforced the principle that administrative or funding delays do not negate the legal entitlement to reimbursement of taxes paid under a subsequent tax regime when works were completed and billed under a previous regime.

Final Determinations on Each Issue:

The Court directed the respondent department to reimburse the GST amounts of Rs. 68,98,565 and Rs. 34,95,220 to the respective appellants within twelve weeks. Failure to do so would result in an entitlement for the appellants to receive simple interest at 6% per annum from the date the amount became due until payment is made.

← Previous Next →