K.J. Mathew VS State Of Kerala

The petitioner operates a business that supplies manpower to various establishments based on their specific needs. The petitioner is registered as a tax assesse under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) system with GSTN 32AEMP3886J1Z1. The third respondent in this case is a subsidiary of Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited, which is an enterprise owned by the Government of India. This subsidiary company is currently undergoing winding-up proceedings, and the fourth respondent has been appointed as the Liquidator for this process.

In 2015, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the third respondent to provide maintenance and upkeep services for various plants. According to the agreement’s terms, the petitioner has paid taxes on 42 items related to the different services provided. Additionally, the petitioner had another agreement with the third respondent for 20 different service items, for which the petitioner has not been paying taxes as per the contract terms. These agreements have been periodically extended over time.

When the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was introduced in 2017, the third respondent issued two separate work orders. This introduction of GST brought about changes in the tax regime applicable to the services provided under the agreements between the petitioner and the third respondent.

subsidiary of Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited, a Government of India Enterprise, which is undergoing winding-up proceedings with the 4th respondent appointed as the Liquidator.

In 2015, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent for the upkeep of various plants, covering 42 service items, for which the petitioner remitted taxes. Additionally, the petitioner had a separate agreement with the 3rd respondent for 20 different service items, under which no taxes were remitted. These agreements were extended periodically.

With the introduction of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) in 2017, the 3rd respondent issued two separate work orders to the petitioner effective from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018. The first work order covered the 42 service items for which taxes were remitted, and the second work order covered the 20 service items for which no taxes were remitted. Upon the expiration of these contracts, the 3rd respondent issued new work contracts, Exhibits-P1 and P2, effective from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2019, maintaining the same service items and tax remittance conditions.

The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing manpower supply to various establishments based on their specific requisitions. The petitioner is a registered tax assessee with GSTN 32AEMP3886J1Z1. The 3rd respondent, a subsidiary of Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited, is a Government of India Enterprise currently undergoing winding-up proceedings, with the 4th respondent appointed as the Liquidator.

In 2015, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent to maintain various plants, under which the petitioner paid tax for 42 items of services as specified in the agreement. Additionally, a separate agreement covered 20 items of services, for which the petitioner did not remit tax as per the contract terms. These agreements were periodically extended.

With the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 2017, the 3rd respondent issued two separate work orders to the petitioner for different services. One work order covered the 42 items of services from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018, and another covered the 20 items of services for the same period. Upon expiration of these work orders, the 3rd respondent issued new work contracts (Exhibits P1 and P2) for the period from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2019, continuing the distinction between the two sets of services.

Exhibit P1, related to the 42 items of services, explicitly included the liability to pay GST as a statutory responsibility of the petitioner, which the petitioner duly complied with by remitting the GST. Conversely, Exhibit P2, related to the 20 items of services, did not assign the GST payment responsibility to the petitioner. According to Exhibit P2, the 3rd respondent, as the service recipient, was obligated to remit the GST for the 20 items of services.

The petitioner operated under the bona fide belief that the 3rd and 4th respondents adhered strictly to the terms and conditions of the work contracts, specifically regarding the GST payment responsibilities delineated in Exhibits P1 and P2.

The petitioner is involved in providing manpower supply to various establishments based on their requisitions and is a tax assessee with GSTN 32AEMP3886J1Z1. The 3rd respondent is a subsidiary of Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited, a Government of India Enterprise, currently undergoing winding-up proceedings, with the 4th respondent appointed as the Liquidator.

In 2015, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent for the maintenance of various plants, involving tax remittance for 42 service items. Another agreement was made for 20 different service items, for which the petitioner did not remit tax as per the contract terms. These agreements were extended periodically.

When the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was introduced in 2017, the 3rd respondent issued two separate work orders to the petitioner for the two different service types, effective from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018. Upon expiration, new work contracts (Exhibits P1 and P2) were issued for the period from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2019.

In Exhibit P1, related to the 42 service items, GST liability was included as a statutory obligation of the petitioner, and the petitioner complied by remitting the GST. However, in Exhibit P2, pertaining to the 20 service items, the petitioner was not liable for GST remittance as per the contract; instead, the 3rd respondent was obligated to remit the GST for these services.

The petitioner assumed that respondents 3 and 4 adhered to the contract terms and paid the GST for the 20 service items listed in Exhibit P2. However, the 5th respondent issued Exhibits P3 and P4 notices under Section 122 of the State Goods and Services Act, demanding a penalty for the financial years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.

The 5th respondent issued these notices despite the contractual stipulation that respondents 3 and 4 were responsible for the GST remittance for the 20 service items. The 5th respondent believes that without judicial clarification, they cannot exempt the petitioner from the demands in Exhibits P3 and P4. Consequently, the petitioner is highly aggrieved by these notices.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: