Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to GST at 18% for the work contract services supplied to U.P. Jal Nigam, whether the contrary order dated 6 August 2025 could be sustained, and whether the balance 6% GST was payable.
Analysis: The dispute was held to be essentially legal, as the work had been performed and the controversy concerned the applicable rate of GST. An earlier advance ruling and appellate advance ruling in respect of similarly placed supplies had already determined that U.P. Jal Nigam was not entitled to the lower-rate exemption and that the applicable rate was 18%. The Court treated that determination as having binding effect under the GST Act. It further found that the Jal Nigam's later stand that GST was already included in the contract, and its attempt to justify payment at 12%, were unsupported and arbitrary. The order dated 6 August 2025 was found to have been passed in disregard of the facts and law.
Conclusion: The petitioner's entitlement to GST at 18% was affirmed, the order dated 6 August 2025 was quashed, and the balance 6% GST was held payable by the respondent authority.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned administrative determination was set aside, and the respondent was directed to release the unpaid GST differential to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: An advance ruling and appellate advance ruling under the GST regime, once final and applicable to identical supplies, binds the parties under the statutory scheme and cannot be ignored by a public authority to justify payment of tax at a lower rate.