The petitioner sought a refund of additional GST paid on a work contract executed before GST implementation but executed after. The court refused to decide merits and directed the respondents to examine the representation and grant an opportunity of hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 1ST ASWINA, 1942
WP(C).No.9260 OF 2020(F)
PETITIONER:
T.I.RAJU AGED 72 YEARS S/O.LATE T.E.ITHAPIRI, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI.P.O, KOCHI-30
BY ADVS. SMT.TESSY JOSE SRI.ELDHO PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM-676505
SC - SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.9260 OF 2020(F)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of September 2020
The petitioner through instant writ petition has sought indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Kerala Water Authority to refund the GST amount paid by the petitioner.
WP(C).No.9260 OF 2020(F)
3
deducted from the said bills. The petitioner filed GST return by remitting 12% of the gross amount of the GST in time. But on 19.02.2019 while closing the third part bill, the department deducted a sum of Rs.1,77,500/- as arrears of VAT, which according to the petitioner is not justified.
submitted that the GST was implemented with effect from 01.07.2017. The petitioner was forced to pay 12% as additional tax. But none of the conditions contain any provision for payment of GST. In this regard, a circular bearing No.GST/002/17 dated 10.08.2017 (Ext.P2) was issued wherein the first respondent agreed to reimburse the amount additionally paid by the petitioner including similarly situated persons and in this regard, submitted a representation Ext.P3 dated 11.03.2020 to the respondents 1 to 3, but no action has been taken so far.
WP(C).No.9260 OF 2020(F)
4
all the grounds in contemplated reply.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, regarding the entitlement of GST refund owing to the fact that the agreement was executed in 2016, I am of the view that in the fitness of things, let respondents 1 to 3 consider the representation Ext.P3 taking into account the circular, ibid, which the petitioner is attempted to rely upon in support of the claim. In order to decide the aforementioned representation, the petitioner will be also afforded an opportunity of hearing, and at liberty to rely on any other provisions other than the circular referred above. Let this exercise is undertaken within a period of two months.
This writ petitions will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
nak
WP(C).No.9260 OF 2020(F)
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.SE/PHC/MPM/2/2016-17 DATED 3.6.2016 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.GST/002/17 DATED 10.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY LATEST REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 DT.11.3.2020
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS, DT.12.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY
//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of additional GST paid on work executed under a pre-GST agreement
Whether the representation filed by the petitioner should be disposed of by the High Court or referred to the respondent authorities
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
None cited in the textReferred
3 provisions across 3 enactments
T.I.Raju
The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority Jalabhavan
The Superintending Engineer Kerala Water Authority
The Executive Engineer Kerala Water Authority PH Division
The Finance Manager and Chief Accounts Officer Kerala Water Authority Jalabhavan
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
