Facts of the Case

M/s Maa Vindhya Vasini Constructions had carried out a works contract for the State of U.P. and claimed refund of GST at 18%, but was granted a refund only at 12%. The petitioner had already filed a representation before Respondent No.7 raising this grievance and told the Allahabad High Court that the purpose of the writ petition would be served if it were simply permitted to pursue that representation, with a direction that it be decided within a fixed time.

Issues Involved

  1. What GST rate (18% or 12%) properly applied to the works contract in question for refund purposes.
  2. Whether the writ petition should be kept pending or disposed of by directing consideration of the representation already filed.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner was entitled to GST refund at the higher, 18% rate rather than the 12% actually granted.
  • The petitioner had already raised this via a representation to Respondent No.7 which needed to be decided within a court-fixed timeframe.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Counsel for the respondents stated that if the petitioner filed a representation, it would be duly considered by Respondent No.7.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court did not decide which GST rate applied.
  • It disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before Respondent No.7 within two weeks.
  • It directed that the representation be decided by a speaking and reasoned order, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Important Clarification

This order contains no ruling on the correct GST rate for the works contract or on the refund entitlement — the rate dispute (18% versus 12%) is left entirely to the departmental authority to decide by a reasoned order. Contractors facing similar refund-rate disputes should note that courts frequently route such rate/classification questions back to the department via a time-bound representation rather than adjudicating them directly in writ jurisdiction.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — refund provisions, rate of tax on works contracts (not adjudicated on merits)

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with a procedural direction; no decision in favour of either party on the rate dispute.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
  • Case: Writ Tax No.1048 of 2023
  • Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:176101-DB
  • Coram: Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, Chief Justice, and Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
  • Date: 06.09.2023

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.