Goa Shipyard Limited, Thr. Its Auth. Rep. Kishore Manohar Samant Vs Shoft Shipyard Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Rep. R Ram Garg

16-20 WP -770-2024 & ORS (1).odt

Meena

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.770 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.771 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.773 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.776 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.777 OF 2024

¶5

Goa Shipyard Limited A company incorporated under the Laws of India Having its oice at Vasco da Gama Goa–403 802 hrough its authorised Representative Mr. Kishore Manohar Samant Son of late Manohar Sitaram Sawant Aged 58 years, R/o H.No.196/1/10, Surya Nagar Colony, Zuari Nagar, Sancoale, Goa ..... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shoft Shipyard Pvt. Limited, A company incorporated under the Laws of India, Having its oice at Plot No.A-365,Road No.2B, Wagle Industrial Estate, hane- 400 604 through its Representative ... R Ram Garg, General Manager, Respondent

¶8

Mr. S.D. Padiyar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurish Agni and Mr. Prayash Shirodkar, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Nikhil Pai with Mr. Narsimha Vernekar, Advocates for the Respondent.

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

16-20 WP -770-2024 & ORS (1).odt

¶12

CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶13

DATED :- 6^th August, 2025

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶15

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶16

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

¶17

3. hese ive petitions arise from ive execution applications respectively bearing Nos. SEXA/1/2021, SEXA/3/2021, SEXA/5/2021, SEXA/7/2021 and SEXA/9/2021 which are pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division at Vasco Da Gama. he execution proceedings have been iled by the Respondent herein to execute certain arbitral awards, and the Petitioner, who is common to all the awards, is the Judgment Debtor in those proceedings.

¶18

4. An application came to be iled in each one of these proceedings which are at Exh.20 thereof, wherein the Decree-holder sought directions of the Executing Court to the Judgment Debtor, to pay GST @ 18% on the part payment of interest on the amount due under the award. he executing Court has granted the relief and accordingly directed the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor to pay this amount as GST due on the part payment of the interest. It is these ive orders that are impugned in these petitions.

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

16-20 WP -770-2024 & ORS (1).odt

¶21

5. During the pendency of these petitions, the Respondent submitted that it had applied to the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling on Good and Services Tax as to whether GST was at all due on the amounts claimed in the aforesaid ive applications in their execution proceedings. A copy of the application iled before the said Authority was also placed on record.

¶22

6. Consequently, this Court by order dated 26.02.2025, recorded this position and directed the Executing Court to keep in abeyance further execution of its ive impugned orders, restricted to the question of the judgment Debtor making payments of GST on part interest payment.

¶23

7. he learned Advocate for the Respondent now places on record order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling, which has ruled that the Respondent is not liable to pay GST on “interest awarded under arbitration” and “costs awarded under arbitration” received by them in terms of the awards which are subject matter of the ive execution proceedings. his being the ruling of the authority, it is now obvious that the decree holders would not have to pay GST on the aforementioned amount received by them. Consequently, the impugned order dated 02.08.2020 which directs the Judgment Debtor/ petitioner herein to make this payment would necessarily have to be quashed and set aside, as GST on the aforesaid payments is not payable, as held by the Advance Ruling Authority. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

16-20 WP -770-2024 & ORS (1).odt

¶26

8. Rule is made absolute in terms of the prayer clause (a) of the petitions. No costs.

¶27

9. Needless to state that the Executing Court may proceed with the execution of the arbitral awards in accordance with law.

¶28

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶29

Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 11/08/2025 11:23:10

¶30

Page 4 of 4

Goa Shipyard Limited, Thr. Its Auth. Rep. Kishore Manohar Samant v. Shoft Shipyard Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Rep. R Ram Garg

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goa Shipyard Limited, Thr. Its Auth. Rep. Kishore Manohar Samant v. Shoft Shipyard Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Rep. R Ram Garg

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rujuta Balkrishna Parulekar, Thr. Her Constituted Attorney Balkrishna v. Parulekar Vs Mithun Brahmanpalli Gopinath and Anr.

Siddique Alias Suleman Khan, Presently in Judicial Custody Vs State, Officer in Charge, Special Investigation Team (Sit) and Anr.

Reshma Prakash Naik Vs Dnyaneshwar Bhagwan Haldankar and Anr.

Ramchandra G. N. Mule Vs the Registrar of Cooperative Sicieties Government of Goa and 5 Ors.

Edc Limited, Thr. Its Auth. Rep. Sayeesh a. Prabhu Vs Sayajirao Vishwasrao Prabhu Dessai (Deceased) and 5 Ors.

Edc Limited, Thr. Its Auth. Rep. Sayeesh a. Prabhu Vs Sayajirao Vishwasrao Prabhu Dessai (Deceased) and 5 Ors.