2025 (4) TMI 1014 - HC - GST

Challenge to order passed by respondent no.2 under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - The petitioner has failed to indicate any notification issued under Section 9 of the Act having application to the contract in question and therefore the plea sought to be raised based on the agreement between the parties cannot be countenanced. The indication made in the agreement between the parties can be enforced by the petitioner against respondent no.3 however insofar as respondent State is concerned the liability to pay the GST is that on the supplier i.e. the petitioner and therefore the plea raised in this regard has no substance. Petition dismissed.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court, in a writ petition challenging an order under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, upheld a GST demand of Rs. 33,17,688/- against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that under an agreement with respondent no.3 (Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.), the latter was liable to pay GST, invoking the reverse charge mechanism under Section 9 of the Act. However, the Court noted the absence of any notification under Section 9 applicable to the transaction, stating: "The petitioner has failed to indicate any notification issued under Section 9 of the Act having application to the contract in question." Consequently, the Court held that while the petitioner may enforce the agreement against respondent no.3, "insofar as respondent State is concerned, the liability to pay the GST is that on the supplier i.e. the petitioner." The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.