9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f various description. The construction services under Heading 9954 were notified to be taxed at the rate of 9%. However, in the 20th GST Council meeting held on 5th August, 2017, a decision was taken to reduce the rate of GST on Works Contract Services from 18% to 12 %. This information, as is claimed by the review petitioner, was available with the review petitioner when he submitted his tender(s). The review petitioner submitted his tenders after the decision of GST Council recommending reduction of rate of GST on works contract from 18% to 12%. Formal notification by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir in terms of SRO-GST-06 (Rate) notifying the new rates of GST was issued on 21st September, 2017, which was admittedly after the submission of the bids by the review petitioner as also the last date fixed for submissions of tenders i.e. 01.08.2017. The GST rates came to be reduced from 18% to 12% vide notification dated 21st September, 2017. The bid(s) submitted by the review petitioner were accepted by the department concerned, works allotted and commenced after the issuance of notification dated 21st September, 2027. The review petitioner like the other similarly situated contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther connected matters. This is how this Court, in terms of its judgment dated 03.11.2023, reiterated what was said by the earlier Division Bench and dismissed the petitions. The writ petition filed by the review petitioner herein i.e. WP(C) No.932/2021 was also premised on similar grounds. The same was taken up along with other similarly situated petitions and vide order dated 03.11.2023, the same was also dismissed in light of the judgment dated 03.11.2023 passed in WP(C) No.170/2021. It is this judgment passed by us the petitioner is aggrieved of and seeks review of the same. 5. The review is sought by the review petitioner on the ground that this Court has not appreciated that the order allotting the work to the review petitioner were issued after 21st September, 2017 i.e. after the rate of tax stood already reduced and that this Court also did not appreciate and take into consideration that even Condition No.49 of the Special Conditions of tender document was in the teeth of the statutory provisions of the GST Act. It is submitted that, in terms of Section 13 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, liability to pay tax on services arise at the time of supply, as dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner has also not been able to point out any other sufficient reason, which would persuade us to recall our well considered judgment. 8. Special Condition 49, as reproduced in paragraph No.12 of the judgment passed in M/s Pardeep Electricals and Builder Pvt. Ltd, makes it abundantly clear that the rate quoted by the contractor shall be deemed to be inclusive of all taxes, duties, royalties, octroi and other levies payable under the respective statutes. The tendered rates shall be deemed to be inclusive of all "taxes directly related to contract value" with existing percentage rates prevailing on the last due date for receipt of tenders. Any increase in percentage of rate of "taxes directly related to contract value" with reference to prevailing rates on last due date for receipt of tenders shall be reimbursed to the contractor and similarly any decrease in percentage rate of "taxes directly related to contract value" with reference to prevailing rates on last due date for receipt of tenders shall be refunded by the contractor to the Government/deducted by the Government from any payment due to the contractor. 9. From a plain reading of Clause 49, in its entirety, it becomes abund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larly, if there is any decrease, the differential amount shall be refunded by the contractor to the Government or deducted by the Government from any payment due to the contractor. 12. We fail to understand how incidence of GST or the manner in which the change in rates of taxes in respect of supply of goods and services would impact the charging of GST is of any help to the review petitioner. Otherwise also, neither Special Condition 49 of the Contract Agreement was under challenge nor any argument in this regard was made before us when we decided the matter on 3rd November 2023. 13. We shall be failing in our duty if we do not address another argument which for the first time was urged before us on behalf of the review petitioner. It was argued that the contract which the review petitioner executed was governed by SRO-GST-2(Rate) dated 22nd August, 2017, whereby the composite supply of works contract was made exigible to GST @ 12% and therefore, subsequent SRO issued on 21st September, 2017 was not applicable. He relies upon S.No.3 of the Notification dated 22nd August, 2017, which deals with composite supply of works contract, as defined in Clause 119 of Section 2 of CGST Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii) of Notification dated 8th July, 2017 reads as under:- "(iii) construction services other than (i) and (ii) above." 16. The composite supply of works contract as defined in Clause 119 of Section 2 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 figures at item No. 3(ii) of Notification dated 8th July, 2017 prescribing 18% GST was not altered by SRO-GST-2(Rate) dated 22nd August, 2017. What was sought to be amended and elaborated by notification dated 22nd August, 2017 was only item No.3 (i) at serial No.3 dealing with construction services other than composite supply of works contract mentioned in item No.3(ii) and the construction services mentioned in Clause 3(iii). The rate of GST prescribed vide notification dated 8th July, 2017, which was in-vogue at the time of submission of bids by the petitioner as also on the last due date for submission of bids, on composite supply of works was 18%. Vide notification dated 21st September, 2017, the rate of GST came to be reduced from 18% to 12%. 17. We have dealt with aforesaid argument, as the same was vehemently argued by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, though the plea was not specifically pleaded and set up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
