2022 (12) TMI 819 - HC - GST

Levy of GST - employer and the contractor qua tenders and agreements - it is a case of the contractor/writ petitioner that tenders were prior to 01.07.2017 before the GST regime kicked in and therefore, GST incurred by the contractor has to be absorbed by the contractor - HELD THAT - The captioned Writ Petition is disposed of with a simple directive to the second respondent to dispose of the aforementioned representation of writ petitioner dated 07.11.2022 on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as the official business of the second respondent would permit and in any event, within a fortnight from today i.e., by 27.12.2022. The disposal proceedings of the second respondent shall be communicated to the writ petitioner under due acknowledgment within three working days therefrom. Though obvious, it is made clear that there is no expression of view or opinion in this order and the second respondent shall dispose of the aforementioned representation on its own merits and in accordance with law - writ petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of representation by the second respondent regarding tenders and agreements.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition concerning tenders floated by a municipality for construction works. The petitioner participated in the tender process, became successful, and agreements were entered into. The main issue is the directive sought by the petitioner for the second respondent to dispose of their representation dated 07.11.2022. The court noted that the abridged prayer limits the issue to the relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent regarding tenders and agreements.

The petitioner contended that the tenders were issued before the GST regime came into effect, and therefore, any GST incurred should be absorbed by the contractor. The court acknowledged the representation submitted by the petitioner and directed the second respondent to dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with the law. The directive required the second respondent to handle the representation expeditiously, within a fortnight from the judgment date, and communicate the decision to the petitioner promptly.

The judgment emphasized that there was no expression of opinion or view by the court, and the second respondent was instructed to evaluate the representation independently and lawfully. The writ petition was disposed of with the aforementioned directive, and no costs were awarded in the matter.