Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2022 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 371 - HC - GSTWorks Contract - Post GST era -The claim of the Petitioner is one for money which it seeks as reimbursement from the Opposite Parties - Constitutional Validity of taxes being shared and borne by the petitioner on post enactment Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - direction not to restitute the benefit of GST to the petitioner along with interest within a stipulated period in respect of work in which the estimated was prepared under the VAT law - infringement of GST Act - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The instant matter being similar to that of the case decided by this Court in CHANDRA SEKHAR JENA VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS [2021 (10) TMI 1350 - ORISSA HIGH COURT], the present writ petition is hereby dismissed in the similar fashion and, thus, this Court holds that the claim of the petitioner is hit by law of limitation - It was held in the case of CHANDRA SEKHAR JENA that the agreement in question is dated 26th April, 2016 with the time for completion being 11 months. Clearly, therefore, any claim now raised arising from the said contract would be time barred. It is, therefore, not possible to accede to the prayer of the Petitioner. Before parting, this Court wishes to observe that the petitioner has made a prayer to restrain the opposite parties, authorities of the CT&GST Organisation, from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner to recover amount of GST. Qua such a prayer, it is necessary to record that the task of determining the quantum of GST having regard to liability is of the Authority vested with power under the CGST/OGST Act and not within the domain of any other - The claim of the Petitioner ultimately, in simple terms, is one for money which it seeks as reimbursement from the Opposite Parties. It is not possible for this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to calculate on a case to case basis which component of the work executed by the Petitioner for reimbursement on account of GST and which is not. This being a disputed question of fact, the Court declines to undertake this exercise in the writ jurisdiction and leaves it to the Petitioner to seek other appropriate remedies available to him in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.
|