GST Appellate Order Upheld: Contract Executed Post-Regime Confirms Tax Liability and Procedural Compliance

HC dismissed the writ petition challenging a GST appellate order. The court found the impugned order legally sound, determining that the contract was executed post-GST regime and the petitioner was obligated to pay applicable GST. No procedural violations or natural justice breaches were identified, resulting in a comprehensive rejection of the petitioner's claims without imposing costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a writ petition against an appellate order passed under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Notification applicability and principles of natural justice
The petitioner, a contractor executing works for the State Government, raised grievances regarding the Notification dated 16th August, 2017 not addressing payments made in the post GST regime for contracts approved before 1st July, 2017. The petitioner alleged a violation of the principles of natural justice, claiming no opportunity of hearing was provided. The petitioner challenged the impugned order on these grounds.

Issue 2: Respondent's submission and contract execution
The respondent authorities argued that the subject agreement was executed after the introduction of the Act, on 20th August, 2018, with the completion certificate issued on 8th July, 2023. They contended that the contract was granted and executed post-GST regime, making pre-GST regime inapplicable. The authorities stated that the petitioner had been given ample opportunity but failed to justify the non-applicability of the GST amount received for works contracts executed after the GST regime. Proceedings were initiated under Section 74 of the Act, leading to the impugned order.

Issue 3: Justification of impugned order
The impugned order was deemed well-reasoned, stating that the petitioner had received full payment for work contracts in the post-GST regime, obliging them to pay GST accordingly. The order highlighted that the petitioner's claim of non-payment of tax by the Department was untenable, emphasizing that non-payment of GST by the petitioner violated the Act. The order addressed all aspects raised by the petitioner, concluding that there was no illegality, perversity, or error of law in the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, with no costs imposed, as the impugned order was considered to be legally sound, providing adequate reasoning and addressing all points raised by the petitioner.

---