V.C. Constructions VS Commissioner Of Gst

The petitioner, a contractor specializing in government-awarded contracts in Kerala, has been registered under the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) and Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Acts. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the third respondent on April 27, 2017 (Exhibit P1), to undertake various construction activities. The petitioner asserts that the contracted work was completed by January 2020. However, the invoices approved by the contracting authority (awarder) show that the GST due on the work has not been calculated. Instead, only the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as per Section 51 of the GST Act has been considered. The petitioner has submitted bills for the completed work, referenced as Exhibits P2 to P2(b).

The petitioner, a contractor primarily involved in executing contracts for the Government of Kerala, had registered under the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) and Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Acts. On April 27, 2017, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the third respondent for various construction activities, documented in Exhibit P1. The petitioner claims to have completed the work by January 2020, as evidenced by approved invoices. However, these invoices indicate that the tax due under the GST regime was not calculated, and only the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under Section 51 of the GST Act was considered. The petitioner raised bills for the work through Exhibits P2 to P2(b).

Additionally, the petitioner references Circular No. 90/2017 issued by the Secretary (Finance Expenditure) of the Finance (Industries & Public Works B) Department on December 14, 2017. According to this circular, when processing bills for work executed on behalf of the government, payment should cover both the total value of the work and the applicable GST.

At this point, the learned Government Pleader has indicated that the department is not opposed to considering the petitioner’s claims.

The petitioner, a contractor engaged in government projects in Kerala and registered under the SGST and CGST Acts, was awarded a contract by the third respondent for various construction activities on April 27, 2017 (Ext.P1). The petitioner completed the work by January 2020. The invoices for this work showed that GST was not calculated, and only TDS under Section 51 of the GST was considered. The petitioner submitted bills for the work (Exts.P2 to P2(b)).

According to Circular No.90/2017 Fin. dated December 14, 2017, issued by the Secretary of Finance (Expenditure), Finance (Industries & Public Works B) Department, payments for work executed for any government entity should include the total value of work and applicable GST.

During the hearing, the Government Pleader stated that the Department would consider a representation from the petitioner regarding the payment issues in accordance with the prevailing circular. The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, directed the petitioner to submit a representation within two weeks from receiving the judgment. The respondents are required to consider the representation within one month after receiving it and provide the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing..

The petitioner, a contractor registered under the SGST and CGST Acts, primarily engages in executing contracts awarded by the Government of Kerala. On April 27, 2017, an agreement (Ext.P1) was signed between the petitioner and the third respondent for various construction activities. The petitioner claims to have completed the work by January 2020, but the invoices approved by the awarder do not include the GST due, only accounting for the TDS under Section 51 of the GST.

The petitioner submitted bills for the completed work (Exts.P2 to P2(b)). According to Circular No.90/2017 Fin., dated December 14, 2017, issued by the Secretary (Finance Expenditure) of the Finance (Industries & Public Works B) Department, payments for work executed for the government should include both the total value of the work and the applicable GST.

During the proceedings, the learned Government Pleader stated that the Department would consider a representation submitted by the petitioner regarding this issue, in line with the prevailing circular. After hearing the counsel for both parties and reviewing the documents, the court decided not to comment on the merits of the case but directed the petitioner to submit a representation within two weeks of receiving the judgment copy.

Upon receiving the representation, the respondents are instructed to address it within one month, providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The writ petition is thus disposed of with these directions..

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: