PWD ordered to refund Rs.65.28 lakhs GST and pay Rs.84.84 lakhs service tax following post-facto approval under Section 85

The HC dismissed the writ petition due to available statutory appellate remedy under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994. However, the court recognized post-facto approval dated 6th June, 2017 as binding, following precedent in M/S. RAJLAXMI CONSTRUCTION case. The court ordered PWD authorities to refund Rs.65.28 lakhs GST amount and pay Rs.84,84,035/- service tax to appellant. Penalties imposed under various sections were set aside, with the court finding administrative confusion and delays as mitigating factors. The appeal was ultimately allowed with state authorities' orders set aside.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issues considered in this case were:

• Whether the writ petition was correctly dismissed by the learned writ court on the grounds of an available statutory appellate remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.
• The effect of the post-facto approval granted by the Government of West Bengal on June 6, 2017, concerning the payment obligations under the service tax regime and the subsequent GST regime.
• The appropriateness of the penalty and interest imposed on the appellant under the adjudication order dated September 29, 2022.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Dismissal of the Writ Petition

The writ petition was initially dismissed by the learned writ court on the grounds that there was an available statutory appellate remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The court did not delve into the merits of the case, as the statutory framework provided an alternative route for the appellant to challenge the adjudication order.

The court's interpretation was based on the principle that judicial intervention via writ petitions is generally discouraged when statutory remedies are available, unless exceptional circumstances justify such intervention.

2. Post-Facto Approval and Payment Obligations

The post-facto approval dated June 6, 2017, was a central issue, as it granted administrative approval for certain projects, including service tax components. The appellant argued that this approval should influence the payment obligations under both the service tax and GST regimes.

The court considered previous judgments, particularly those in FMA 340 of 2023 and FMA 342 of 2023, which addressed similar issues. It was noted that the post-facto approval included service tax considerations, and the court had previously determined that the respondents could not deny the payment obligations arising from such approvals.

In this case, the appellant's name was included in the annexure to the post-facto approval, which supported their claim for reimbursement of service tax and GST payments. The court held that the State authorities were obligated to refund the GST amount already recovered and to pay the service tax amount to the appellant.

3. Penalty and Interest Imposed on the Appellant

The adjudication order dated September 29, 2022, imposed penalties and interest on the appellant. The court found that due to the inter-departmental confusion and the prolonged nature of the case, imposing penalties was inappropriate.

The court referenced the confusion arising from the transition between the service tax and GST regimes and the subsequent administrative challenges. It concluded that the penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, were unjustified.

Similarly, the interest imposed was also deemed inappropriate and was subsequently deleted.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The court made several significant holdings:

• The dismissal of the writ petition was upheld due to the availability of a statutory appellate remedy, reinforcing the principle of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
• The post-facto approval was found to be binding, requiring the State authorities to refund the GST amount and pay the service tax amount to the appellant. The court emphasized that the post-facto approval included service tax considerations, which the authorities could not ignore.
• The penalties and interest imposed on the appellant were set aside, with the court recognizing the administrative confusion and delays as mitigating factors.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the State authorities were directed to recredit the appellant's credit/cash ledger with Rs.65.28 lakhs and to pay the service tax demanded, amounting to Rs.84,84,035/-. Upon receipt, the appellant was instructed to remit the amount to the Service Tax Department under the CGST Head. This decision underscores the importance of administrative clarity and the necessity for authorities to adhere to approvals and legal obligations.

---