TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1645
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g on behalf of the respondent No.1, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri K.D. Nag, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.7 to 9 and Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.3 to 6 and 10. 2. In the present writ petition, a coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order dated April 11, 2025 that is delineated below:- "Sri Paavan Awasthi, Advocate is present on behalf of the opp. party No. 1 by filing his Memo-of-Appearance, which is taken on record. Sri K.D. Nag, Advocate is present on behalf of the opp. party Nos. 7, 8 and 9 by filing his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also Sri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s." 3. Subsequent to the aforesaid directions, the respondent-authority was expected to pass an order within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. However, no such order was passed within the said time limit as provided by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was compelled to file an application for contempt before the High Court. The matter came up before the Contempt Court and notice was issued by an order dated July 8, 2025. It appears that after the contempt application was filed, an order dated August 6, 2025 has been passed by the authority concerned. 4. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the dispute essentially relates to short payment of GST by the U.P. Jal Nigam to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide an order dated April 23, 2022 held that the supply of services to M/s U.P. Jal Nigam was not covered under any of the notifications and as such the applicable rate of tax would be 18% (CGST-9% plus SGST-9%). 7. Subsequently, even an Appeal under Section 100 of the GST Act, 2017 came to be filed, wherein vide an order dated March 10, 2023, the appellate authority for Advance Ruling held that the U.P. Jal Nigam is merely a government body and was not entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No.15/2021-Central Tax (Rate) dated November 18, 2021 wherein exemption of lower rate of GST @ 12% was only available to the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory and Local Authorities. In light of the same, it had been hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l appearing on behalf of the U.P. Jal Nigam, that documents were sought for by the petitioner and the petitioner did not provide the same at this belated stage is completely ludicrous as the authority has all the documents including the data with regard to the payments of 12% GST, that have been made by the authority to the petitioner. This is available in their own records itself and they cannot now ask the petitioner to provide further documents just to delay the entire process. The said exercise not only appears to be lackadaisical but an attempt to mislead this Court. Further, the said submission is also self-contradictory, inasmuch as arguendo, if the petitioner did not supply the documents or that Jal Nigam had no documents, then one ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authority for Advance Ruling against the U.P. Jal Nigam and certain amount of certainty and binding effect has to be attached to the said order qua the Jal Nigam in view of Section 103 of the GST Act. Thus, we do not find any bona fide dispute relating to the rate of GST applicable in the present facts and circumstances. 15. Sri K.D. Nag, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.7 to 9 (GST Department) has supported the claim in favour of the petitioner that GST amount is very much payable by the U.P. Jal Nigam @ 18% and also submitted that the U.P. Jal Nigam is paying the said higher rate to other similarly circumstanced suppliers and for identical work contracts as has been performed by the petitioner. 16. Thus, it....