2020 (3) TMI 613 - HC - GST

Blocking GST registration number - Levy of GST - Works contract - pre-GST period - case of the petitioners is that they are contractors under the State Government and have been performing their contracts during the pre-GST period - HELD THAT - The petitioners are required to respond to the notices and approach the concerned authorities by making specific request with regard to the payments they want to make for the post-GST contracts. Petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned authorities within a week and file their representations. Upon such representations being made, the authorities are directed to consider the same and unlock the GST registration so that the payments for the post-GST period can be made by the petitioners - Petitioners are also directed to respond to the show cause notices manually to the concerned authorities within a period of two weeks from date. In the event, the portal is open, the petitioners are at liberty to do so through the portal. The matter is adjourned for a period of four weeks from date.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to a notification issued by respondent authorities regarding GST liability for contractors under the State Government post-GST implementation.
2. Blocking of GST numbers of petitioners by respondent authorities.
3. Failure of petitioners to respond to notices from authorities.
4. Direction to petitioners to approach concerned authorities and file representations for post-GST contract payments.
5. Unlocking of GST registration for petitioners to make payments for post-GST contracts.
6. Requirement for petitioners to respond to show cause notices manually or through the portal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the challenge posed by three writ petitions related to the liability of contractors under the State Government to pay GST post its implementation. The petitioners claim inability to make GST payments for post-GST contracts due to their GST numbers being blocked by the respondent authorities. The central issue revolves around a notification issued by the authorities clarifying this matter, which is under challenge in the petitions.

2. The court notes that the petitioners have failed to respond to notices from the authorities regarding the GST payments. The Additional Advocate General representing the respondents highlights that notices were issued but remained unanswered by the petitioners, emphasizing the need for a response from the petitioners.

3. In its directive, the court instructs the petitioners to engage with the concerned authorities by submitting specific requests for the payments related to post-GST contracts. The petitioners are directed to appear before the authorities within a week, file their representations, and request the unlocking of their GST registration to facilitate payments for the post-GST period.

4. Furthermore, the court emphasizes that the petitioners must respond to show cause notices manually or through the portal within two weeks, if the portal is accessible. The court keeps the issue of the applications' maintainability open, considering its relation to the challenge of show cause notices, and adjourns the matter for four weeks from the date of the judgment.

5. Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of petitioners engaging with the authorities, responding to notices, and seeking resolution for their GST payment issues concerning post-GST contracts. It provides a clear directive for the petitioners to take necessary steps to address the challenges they are facing, ensuring compliance with the legal procedures and facilitating the resolution of the dispute.