2026 (1) TMI 493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the third respondent dated 26.04.2024 whereby the petitioner's request for remittance of the differential cost arising from the increase in GST from 12% to 18% was rejected and seeks a direction to the third respondent to reimburse/pay the differential GST amount by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.03.2024. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, initially the petitioner was liable to pay tax on the invoices raised by the third respondent for the projects executed by the petitioner at the rate of 12%. Subsequently, the rate of tax was increased from 12% to 18% with effect from 18.07.2022. Though the work was completed on 08.06.2022....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the provisions of Section 14(a)(i) of the Act, if there is an increase in the tax rate, the increased tax amount is required to be borne by the National Highways Authority. He further submitted that without considering the said Circular and statutory provisions, the third respondent rejected the petitioner's request vide the impugned order. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second and third respondents submitted that in the present case, the work was not completed on or before 03.07.2020 as stipulated under the original agreement and therefore, the time for completion was extended till 20.05.2022 due to the petitioner's failure to complete the work within the stipulated period. The work completion certificat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng payment subsequently is attributable to the petitioner and the same cannot be attributed to the third respondent. Therefore, the third respondent has rightly denied the claim for payment of the differential tax amount. 10. There is no dispute that this Court, by following the Circular dated 10.02.2023, can issue appropriate directions, as by virtue of the said Circular, if there is any increase in tax as on the date of payment or the date of issuance of invoice, the principal is liable to pay the differential tax. However, in the present case, as stated above, though the work completion certificate was issued on 08.06.2022, the invoice was raised after a lapse of 40 days, i.e. on 18.07.2022. It is evident that the default is on the pa....