Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Raj Construction, filed a writ petition against the Union of India and others, seeking a mandamus directing the Chief Executive Engineer, Construction Division-3, PWD Sultanpur, to comply with a communication (Letter No. 177/09/2022-T.R.U.) issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Tax Research Unit), regarding implementation of an 18% GST provision on all construction works with effect from 18.07.2022. The petitioner's grievance was that this GST provision was not being implemented in respect of its construction contract with the PWD.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the PWD was obliged to implement the 18% GST provision referred to in the Ministry of Finance's communication in respect of the petitioner's construction works.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The grievance would be substantially met if the respondents considered and decided, in a time-bound manner, a fresh representation raising all his grievances regarding implementation of the 18% GST provision on his construction contract.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel for the State had no objection to the petitioner making a fresh, detailed representation to the Chief Executive Engineer, to be considered and decided in accordance with law.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court permitted the petitioner to make a fresh detailed representation, annexing the writ petition and supporting documents, within two weeks.
  • The Chief Executive Engineer was directed to consider and decide the representation by a reasoned, speaking order within two months of receiving it along with a certified copy of the Court's order.
  • The Court expressly clarified that it had not applied its mind to the merits of the case, leaving all questions open for the competent authority to decide in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

This order does not decide whether or how the 18% GST provision applies to the petitioner's specific PWD construction contract — that determination was left entirely to the departmental authority to decide afresh. Contractors facing similar disputes over GST implementation on public-works contracts should treat this as an illustration of the representation-and-decide route courts commonly use, rather than as a precedent on the applicable GST rate itself.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — rate notification for construction/works-contract services
  • Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits; the petitioner was directed to pursue a fresh representation, to be decided by a reasoned order within two months.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
  • Case No.: Writ Tax No. 185 of 2023
  • Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC-LKO:59593-DB
  • Coram: Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J. and Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.
  • Date of Order: 18 September 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.