9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shetty, Advocate For R4 & R5) ORDER 1. In this petition the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: a. To direct the respondent to reimburse GST amount paid by the petitioner for period 24.05.2019 onwards till completion of project and also at rate of 24% interest from date of payment made by petitioner to Government and therefore this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the first respondent to refund the GST amount paid by petitioner. b. Or alternatively direct the first respondent to consider the representations dated 07.08.2023, 05.01.2023, 06.12.2022, 15.09.2022, 07.09.2022, 02.08.2022, 03.02.2022 and 20.04.2021 produced as Annexure- E, F, G, H, J, K, L and M. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipulates that rates to be quoted by the contractor must be inclusive of sales tax/VAT and no extra demand on this count shall be made by the contractor. In this context, it is submitted that after coming into force of the GST regime with effect from 01.07.2017, the question of payment of sales tax/VAT would not arise and said expression 'sales tax/VAT' is a misnomer and same would refer to GST that would be excluded from the rates quoted by the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that after having realized its mistake, respondent No. 1 not only informed the petitioner that it would not be liable to reimburse the GST but also deducted the GST already paid in favour of the petitioner and as such there is no merit in the petition and the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills of the petitioner and only reason assigned by the respondent No. 1 in its objection dated 28.10.2020 (Annexure R-1) is to the effect that it will cause huge burden on respondent No. 1 which is not sustainable in law. It is needless to state that huge burden being caused to respondent No. 1 on account of GST reimbursement in favour of the petitioner cannot be made a basis for respondent No. 1 to avoid its liability to reimburse GST payable in favour of the petitioner. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, in the case of M.G. Arunkumar (supra), under identical circumstances, this Court held as under: "5. It is not in dispute that the entire tender process and allocation of work by respondent/Department is po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
