9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various works at the requisition of the Kerala Water Authority and such other Public and Private Limited undertakings. 2. The controversy in these cases relates to certain specified works already undertaken by the petitioner and the work orders have been placed on record as Ext.P1 in both the writ petitions. The petitioner asserts that the work has been completed and according to them, there is no dispute as to the bill or the other specifics with respect to the quality or nature of the work undertaken. The only issue, as per the petitioner, between them and the Water Authority is as to the manner in which the amount of tax under the GST regime is to be reckoned and adjusted as per the contract. 3. The petitioner says that, as is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment receipt of GST towards the Goods and Services on the respective item executed under the tender." 5. The petitioner thus claims that since they have completed the work and have paid the GST, they are entitled the benefit of Ext.P5 circular, for which, they have made several representations before the Water Authority, copies of which have been placed on record as Exts.P6 to P8 in W.P.(C) No.13676 of 2018 and as Exts.P6 to P9 in W.P.(C) No.13630 of 2018. They have filed these writ petitions praying that the Water Authority be directed to honour their bill and to pay them the GST already deposited by them. 6. I have heard Sri.Santhosh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both cases and the learned standing counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the stand taken by the respondents because, as is clear from Ext.P5 circular, the Head Office, which is to mean the Managing Director, has already taken a decision to compensate the contractors to the extent of the GST paid by them on account of the fact that, at the time when the contract was entered into, the GST regime had not been implemented. I, therefore, fail to understand why the Deputy Chief Engineer should take a stand in the counter affidavit that he is still awaiting directions from the Head Office, when the circular makes it clear that all such payments are to be made to the contractors. 10. In any event of the matter, so long as the respondents do not have a case that the petitioner has not paid the GST amount or that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
