9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1245 - HC - GSTLevy of GST - It is the specific case of the petitioner that no GST has to be paid for the work completed prior to 30.06.2017 and that even if the payment was made, subsequently as per the transitional provisions, no tax was payable under GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - If it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was liable to pay VAT for the works contract for the period prior to 01.07.2017, it was incumbant on the part of the petitioner to have explained that the tax liability was under VAT and not GST and that the petitioner has already discharged tax liability under VAT. If there was any variance in the rate of tax, the tax can be either collected or refunded from/to the petitioner. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders by allocating the amounts due payable by the petitioner from and out of the amounts deposited, under the VAT Act and under the GST Act - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order dated 16.11.2023 for assessment year 2017-18 under GSTIN: 33AGSPJ6505F1ZF/2017-18. Analysis: 1. The petitioner contested the impugned order, arguing that the tax liability paid mostly pertained to the VAT period and was not payable under Section 142(11)(a) of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner had paid Rs. 21,21,102/- pursuant to the order, seeking relief due to the nature of the tax liability. 2. The petitioner later obtained legal advice indicating that tax was only payable for work contracts completed during the GST regime from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018. It was argued that no GST was required for work completed before 30.06.2017, and if paid, transitional provisions exempted such payments under the GST Act, 2017. 3. The Additional Government Pleader contended that the petitioner had already fulfilled tax liabilities under the TNVAT Act, 2006 for work contracts, dismissing the petitioner's claim to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner had complied with the order by paying tax, interest, and penalty on various dates. 4. The Court considered both parties' submissions and found that if the petitioner was liable for VAT for work contracts before 01.07.2017, it was crucial for the petitioner to clarify the tax liability under VAT and not GST. Any tax rate discrepancies could be adjusted with the petitioner accordingly. 5. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case to the respondent to issue fresh orders, allocating amounts due under both the VAT Act and the GST Act. The petitioner was instructed to provide a legal opinion supporting their position, and the respondent was granted the liberty to recover any remaining balance under the TNVAT Act, 2006. 6. The Writ Petition was disposed of with the above directions, without imposing any costs on either party.
|
