TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of post-facto approval was granted on 26.02.2018 and the bill was raised by the petitioner on 22.02. 2019, the petitioner is liable to pay tax under the provisions of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (for short, GST Act). 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit, are that the petitioner is a company which was provisionally enlisted as an erection contractor under the Distribution Wing of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (for short, "WBSEDCL") and is engaged, inter alia, in deploying technical personnel for the repair and maintenance of electrical lines within its allotted working area in Hooghly. 3. The petitioner-company was, from time to time, entrusted by WBSEDCL with various works, which, according to the petitioner, were duly executed by it without any complaint or adverse remark. Sometime in the year 2015, the petitioner-company was entrusted with the work of "Deployment of Technical Personnel for Repair and Maintenance of feeder lines emanating from Belmuri 33/11 KV Sub-Station from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015, during the time span from 06:00 hours to 22:00 hours of the day, under Tarakeswar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act came into effect on 01.07.2017, whereas the entire work entrusted to the petitioner had been completed in the year 2015. According to Mr. Sen, therefore, no liability to pay tax under the GST regime can be fastened upon the petitioner in respect of a work which had already been executed prior to the coming into force of the GST Act. He submits that the denial of payment of the amount otherwise payable to the petitioner on the ground of non-compliance with the formalities relating to GST is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. He further argues that a taxing statute cannot ordinarily be given retrospective operation so as to impose a tax liability in respect of a transaction which had already taken place prior to the coming into force of such statute. Mr. Sen, accordingly, prays for issuance of an appropriate direction upon the respondent no. 3 to release the amount payable to the petitioner, together with interest thereon at the prevailing commercial rate. 8. Per contra, Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, refutes the contentions advanced by Mr. Sen and submits that, although the petitioner had been assigned the work for the period from 01.01.2015 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 2017 coming into force, though certain provisions thereof were brought into force on different dates. The petitioner-company was assigned the work of "Deployment of Technical Personnel for Repair and Maintenance of feeder lines emanating from Belmuri 33/11 KV Sub-Station from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015 during the time span from 06:00 hours to 22:00 hours of the day under Tarakeswar (D) Division". There is no dispute that the aforesaid work could not be executed during the period originally stipulated therefor. 13. The post-facto approval of the said work was thereafter granted by an order dated 26.02.2018, wherein the amounts payable to the petitioner were also detailed. The petitioner subsequently submitted twelve monthly bills, bearing nos. GEC/B-77 to GEC/B-88, all dated 30.10.2018, on 22.02.2019. The respondents have withheld the payment claimed by the petitioner on the ground of non-compliance with the requisite formalities mandated under the provisions of the GST Act. It is also an admitted position that a civil suit, being T.S. No. 494 of 2021, instituted by M/s. Aim Light against the petitioner-company, is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, wherein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f technical personnel for repair and maintenance of feeder lines of WBSEDCL for the period from 1st January, 2015 to 31st December, 2015. Thus, the service in question stood rendered and completed much prior to the appointed day, i.e. 1st July, 2017. The subsequent order dated 26th February, 2018 granting post facto approval to the work already executed cannot, by itself, alter the date on which the service was actually supplied or bring such completed service within the GST regime. Equally, the fact that the bill was raised on 22nd February, 2019 cannot, having regard to the statutory scheme governing the transition from the erstwhile Service Tax regime to the GST regime, determine the taxability of a service which had already been rendered and completed in the year 2015. 18. Section 142(11)(b) of the GST Act specifically provides that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 13, no tax shall be payable under the GST Act to the extent tax was leviable on the services under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. This position is further fortified by Notification No. 5050-F(Y) dated 16th August, 2017 issued by the Audit Branch, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal, wherein....