AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties and pointed out that before a decision is taken as to what is the relief the appellant would be entitled to in this appeal. 5. A clear stand should be taken by the Executive Engineer, Hooghly Highway Division No.1, Public Works (Roads) Directorate, Government of West Bengal. 6. This observation was made taking note of the fact that the appellant had made several representations to the respondent no.3 with a request to make payment of service tax payable in respect of letter of acceptance-cum-work order dated 21st September, 2016, 22nd September, 2016, 23rd September, 2016 etc. The court noted that the case of the appellant raised upon a post-facto approval granted by the Government of West Bengal dated 6th June, 2017. 7. Therefore, a direction was issued to the respondent no.3 to consider the representations of the appellant and passed a reasoned order on the representation. The interim protection which was granted earlier was directed to continue. The respondent no.3 was also permitted to take the assistance of the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal or any other authority and also the CGST aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctor would not arise. 14. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the findings in the said judgment and order dated 11.3.2025: "3. Before examining other documents, which have been filed along with the appeal, it is relevant to take note of the stand taken by the department in their affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ petitioner, more particularly, in paragraph 5(c). It has been stated in the said paragraph that all works were completed and bills were raised before 01.07.2017 i.e. before the GST regime by the petitioner. Out of those bills, three ad-interim payments of Rs.32,42,000.00 Rs.31,87,000.00 and Rs.32,50,000.00 were made respectively on 30.06.2017 against three of those bills for the works mentioned in the tender invited during the year 2017-2018. Further, it has been stated that the writ petitioner claimed for Service Tax reimbursement against three bills and Service Tax was reimbursed for Rs.14,51,850.00 subsequently on 31.03.2018 vide bill no.986/17-18 by the answering respondent. Further, it has been admitted that other bills were raised prior to July 1, 2017(by the writ petitioners) but could not be paid immediately due to lack of avai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Service Tax was 15% which was payable to Central Government only, but now there is a total GST of 12% (6% of GGST + 6% SGST) in this case, which is equally distributed between the Central and State Governments. Further, the Note Sheet admits all the liability to reimburse the GST amount already paid to Government comes to Rs.1,03,93,785/- which is to be paid to the Contractors. Further, by paying service tax & GST total mount comes under Service Tax Head is Rs.1,18,45,635/- which will remain within the sanctioned cost against Service Tax Head. Thus, the total amount expenditure comes to 6 Rs.94,04,85,946/- which will remain within the total sanctioned cost including Service Tax. Ultimately, the Executive Engineer would state that all the bills/challans have attained finality and the bill amount has been paid excluding GST amount to the respective contractors with the copies of the challans evidencing payment of GST to the Government along with CA certificates was submitted by both the appellants and it transpires that a total of Rs.1,03,93,785/- has to be paid to the contractors of Service in terms of aforesaid tender agreement as the matter is already delayed. Apart from that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- in the case of M/s. Biswas Enterprise within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order. In the event the amounts are not refunded within the time frame the appellant in both the appeals are entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the amount becomes due and payable till it is actually paid." 15. The above finding will squarely apply to the case of the appellant since the name of the appellant also finds place in the annexure to the post-facto approval dated 6th June, 2017 as was found in the case of the appellant in FMA 340 of 2023 and FMA 342 of 2023. 16. The only difference in the instant case is that since the consideration was received by the appellant during the GST regime, the GST authorities have demanded GST on that and recovered Rs.65.28 lakhs. This amount has to be necessarily refunded to the appellant by re-credited to the cash/credit ledger of the appellant. After doing so the PWD Authorities have to pay the appellant a sum of Rs.84,84.035/- which being the service tax demanded by the Service Tax Department and such payment should be made to the appellant within a stipulated time and on recei....