9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner as well as Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for all the respondents, except the respondent Nos.3 & 4. 2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner had participated in a tender process for construction of wholesale fish markets in the district of Dhubri, Barpeta, Hailakandi and Goalpara in the State of Assam. The petitioner had submitted his bid price of Rs. 2,32,14,600/- for constru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eductions on the basis of the 2003 Act, there was no justification for the State respondents to have released the petitioner's 2nd and 3rd running bills after making deductions in terms of the SGST and CGST Act, even though the 2nd and 3rd running bills had been submitted subsequent to 01.07.2017, i.e., the date when the SGST and CGST Act came into force. 4. The petitioner's counsel submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the GST Act, since the transaction was not accounted for under the 2003 Act. This Court in WP(C) 4201/2020 thus held that the above clarification made in terms of the Circular No. 3/2017-GST dated 24.08.2017 was in accordance with the provision of Sections 12 and 13 read with Clause 6(a) of Schedule-II of the SGST and CGST Act. 5. The petitioner's counsel submits that in view of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2nd and 3rd running bills of the petitioner, the State had deducted only 1% CGST and 1% SGST from the 2nd and 3rd running bills of the petitioner. 7. On hearing the counsels for the parties and keeping in view the judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 4201/2020, this Court finds that the present writ petition has become infructuous, inasmuch as, there was no infirmity with the application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
