TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grievance before the Arbitrator as per Clause 34 of the agreement. As far as the challenge to sub paragraph 2 of paragraph 2 of the Government Order dated 08.11.2017 is concerned, the petitioner has pleaded neither in the writ petition nor in the prayer clause that the said paragraph under challenge is in contravention of which provision of the Act 2017. But during the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon sub-Section (10) of Section 142 of the Act 2017 with an argument that sub paragraph 2 of paragraph 2 of the Government Order is in contravention of the above mentioned provision, whereas sub-Section (10) of Section 142 does not provide any mode of calculation or formula for determining the liability. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019, passed by the opposite party No. 4/Superintending Engineer, Anusandhan Evam Niyojan (Barh) Mandal, Sichai Bhawan, Annexee, Lucknow, contained in ANNEXURE No. 1 to this Writ Petition. iv. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the operation and implementation of the impugned para 2(2) of the Government Policy dated 08.11.2017, contained in ANNEXURE No. 2 to this writ petition. v. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay to the petitioner/service provider the Goods and Services Tax (GST) admittedly deposited by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 43,20,988/-. vi. Issue a writ order or direction in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents are the recipient of the service rendered by the petitioner-Company and they are liable to pay Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as G.S.T. ) under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2017 ) on Reverse Charge Basis as the liability to pay G.S.T. is on the recipient of service provided by the petitioner. 4. It has further submitted that after the enactment of Act 2017, the petitioner had raised 7th running bill dated 21.03.2018 and the final 8th bill dated 30.07.2018, the payment whereof was made by the department. 5. It has further submitted that the petitioner has also challenged the sub-Para 2 of Para 2 of the Government Order dated 08.11.2017 on the ground that the formu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r argued by the learned Standing Counsel that it is not an admitted amount as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the amount is disputed for which the petitioner has a remedy under Clause 34 of the agreement which provides for arbitration for any of the dispute arising out of the agreement entered into between the parties. 9. It has also submitted that for the disputed amount the writ petition is not maintainable. 10. On being asked specific query from the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sub- Para 2 of Para 2 of the Government Order dated 08.11.2017 is violative of which of the Section of the Act 2017, in reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 142(10) of the Act 2017 for convenience ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
