TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 11,93,172/- from the GST payable to the petitioner at the rate of 12% in respect of the work executed under the agreement dated 05.08.2017 and also seeking to deduct TDS at the rate of 1% under GST - Similarly, the action of 7th and 8th respondents in not refunding the amount remitted by the 5th respondent as VAT liability for the work executed, post-introduction of GST, on the ground of the refund application having been filed beyond the period specified under the Act, also cannot be held to be valid. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - WRIT PETITION NO. 13288 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 16-2-2021 - THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR For the Petitioner: Sri S. Dwarakanath For the Respondents : Smt. G. Neeraja Reddy (S.C) G.P. for Agriculture Sri J. Anil kumar (Spl. Counsel) Sri Namavarapu Rajeswara Rao (Asst. Solicitor General) ORDER ( Per Hon ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar ) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction to the 1st to 6th respondents, to reimburse GST at 12% on the value of construction work done under the agreement dated 05.08.2017 entered i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the progress of the work, had added VAT at the rate of 5% to the said bills and deducted such VAT added to the bills, and remitted the same to the 8th respondent, who also continued to receive such payment, despite the work having been performed post-introduction of GST and the VAT Act having been repealed. 8. Thus, it is claimed that, as the tender floated by the 5th respondent and the agreement excluded the VAT payable, and the said VAT Act being replaced by GST, the 5th respondent is liable to pay GST at the rate of 12% on the agreement value. 9. It is also contended that the petitioner, with the introduction of GST, had obtained registration and had discharged its GST liability at the rate of 12% on the value of work executed, notwithstanding the fact that the 5th respondent did not reimburse the GST; and that the 5th respondent, on the contrary, added 5% VAT/TOT to the running bills raised by the petitioner, and deducted and remitted the same to the 8th respondent, who continued to receive the said payment which is without authority of law. 10. On the basis of the above submission, it is contended that the 1st to 6th respondents are liable to reimburse the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tling the RA bills and remitted to the 8th respondent as tax liability in the hands of the 1st respondent instead of TDS. It is also stated that the credit of the said amount remitted by the 5th respondent was not given to the petitioner; the VAT component remitted by the 5th respondent with the 8th respondent can be refunded under Section 38(9) of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 to the 5th respondent, since the said remittance relates to the work executed during GST regime and not the amount remitted as tax liability under VAT Act; though the 5th respondent filed an application seeking refund of the amount of ₹ 11,93,172/- since, the same has been preferred beyond the time prescribed under the provisions of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005, the refund could not be processed within the period prescribed under the Act. However, it is stated that if this Court is to direct the respondent to process the refund application filed by the 5th respondent, the 7th and 8th respondents will abide by the directions of this Court and the application of the 5th respondent seeking refund could be processed. 16. We have given due consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties as no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018, the respondents continued to apply the rate prescribed under the repealed State enactment, for nonpayment of GST for the construction work done under the agreement, does not appeal to this Court for being accepted. 24. Further, the fact of the 5th respondent making an application seeking refund of the VAT remitted shows that the respondents were ignorant of the statutory changes and had passed the running bills of the petitioner in a mechanical manner in ignorance of the repeal of the VAT Act and introduction of GST in its place. But the petitioner had to discharge the GST liability on his own from and out of his resources, though the petitioner was entitled for being paid GST over and above the value of work executed, as the agreement contemplated for payment of VAT additionally and GST replaced the same. 25. However, the petitioner has not placed any material before this court other than the letter dated 17.06.2020 to show that the petitioner had raised the issue of non liability to pay VAT and reimbursement of GST during the currency of the agreement, when the 5th respondent settled part bill No. 1 to 4 submitted by the petitioner. 26. Similarly, the submission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the work executed, post-introduction of GST, on the ground of the refund application having been filed beyond the period specified under the Act, also cannot be held to be valid. 30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the 1st to 6th respondents are directed to reimburse to the petitioner GST at 12% on the value of the work executed under the agreement dated 05.08.2017 without adjusting/deducting the VAT amount of ₹ 11,93,172/- and also the CGST and SGST of 1% from the final bill; the final bill shall be released to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the respondent shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date when the said payment has fallen due till the date of payment; and the 7th and 8th respondents are directed to process the refund application filed by the 5th respondent for the amount of the VAT paid mistakenly within a period of three weeks from today without insisting any further application being made by the 5th respondent in this regard. 31. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
