GST tax adjustment clauses require reimbursement of burden, while retention cannot rest on audit objections and price disputes require resolution

Pre-GST works contracts containing a tax-adjustment clause may require reimbursement of the additional GST burden where the increase was not included in the contract price. Clause 43.2, read with the Government Order, was described as supporting adjustment of the contract price for changed taxes, despite the inapplicability of the cited service-tax exemptions. Retention money should not be withheld merely because audit objections remain pending; objections relied upon for withholding must be properly communicated, and the retention is otherwise refundable with interest. Claims for price escalation involving billing, interim certificates, and contractual computation require factual examination and should be pursued through the agreed adjudication or arbitration mechanism rather than writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether contractors executing pre-GST works contracts were entitled to reimbursement of the additional tax burden arising from the shift from the earlier VAT/service tax regime to the GST regime under the contract conditions and the Government Order; (ii) Whether retention amounts could be withheld merely on the basis of pending audit objections; (iii) Whether claims for price escalation/price adjustment under the contract could be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether contractors executing pre-GST works contracts were entitled to reimbursement of the additional tax burden arising from the shift from the earlier VAT/service tax regime to the GST regime under the contract conditions and the Government Order.

Analysis: The contracts were entered into before introduction of GST, when the governing tax regime was under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Finance Act, 1994. Clause 43.2 of the General Conditions of Contract required adjustment of the contract price where taxes, duties or levies changed between the bid reference date and the last completion certificate, provided the change was not already reflected in the contract price. The Government Order dated 09.10.2017 also stated that post-GST the tax component was to be borne by the purchaser. The Court treated this contractual mechanism as embodying the principle akin to Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The service tax exemption notifications relied on by the petitioners were found inapplicable, but that did not displace the contractual entitlement to tax adjustment after 01.07.2017.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to reimbursement of the GST-related tax differential under Clause 43.2 read with the Government Order; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether retention amounts could be withheld merely on the basis of pending audit objections.

Analysis: The impugned orders justified non-release of retention money on the ground of pending audit objections. The Court held that retention amounts must be refunded unless there were reasons to appropriate them on account of the executed works. Mere existence of audit objections was held insufficient to deny refund, and any such objections, if relied upon, had to be properly communicated.

Conclusion: Retention amounts could not be withheld solely because audit objections were pending and were liable to be refunded with interest; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether claims for price escalation/price adjustment under the contract could be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The claim for price adjustment under Clause 45 involved factual disputes regarding execution-stage billing, interim payment certificates, and the contractual method of computation. Since the contract itself contained a dispute resolution mechanism through adjudicator and arbitration, and the controversy required factual examination, the writ court declined to pronounce on the merits of price escalation.

Conclusion: The claim for price escalation/price adjustment was not adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and was left to the contractual or other legal remedy; this issue was against the assessee in the writ proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection of GST differential reimbursement and retention refund could not stand, while the price escalation dispute was relegated to the contractually prescribed dispute resolution process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a pre-GST works contract contains a clause for adjustment of contract price on change in taxes and the post-GST regime increases the tax burden during the subsistence of the contract, the employer must reimburse the differential tax not already built into the contract price; however, claims involving fact-intensive price escalation disputes may be relegated to the agreed dispute resolution mechanism.

---