M/s. L and T PES JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and 7 Others
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-11-29. M/s. L and T PES JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and 7 Others. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
I s386 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT FIYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENry NNTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NOS: 19376 OF 2020 AN D 19411 0F 2020 WRIT PETITION NO: 19376 OF 2020 Between: M/s and T PES JV, Rep. by its Project Manager, ! Mr. M. V. Ramakrishna Raju, fVahadevpur lVlandal. Construction of Medigadda Barrage, Mahadevpur, Ambatpally, Jayashankar-505 504. ... PETITIONER AND 1. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Siricilla, Karimnagar District. 2. Slate. of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderbbad. 3 Union of lndia, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Finance Department, New Delhi. 4 Kaleshwaram lrrigation Project Corporation Limited, 1st Floor, West Block, Jalasoudha Building, Erramanzil, Hyderabad-500 082, Telangana.
5 State_of Telangana, Rep. by its Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development, Jalasoudha Burlding, Erramanzil, Hyderabad-500 082, TG. 6. Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad 7. State of Maharashtra, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Maharashtra Secretariat, Mumbai. 8. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Gadchiroli Range, GST Bhavan, Complex Area, Near Collector Office, Opp. Police Head Quarters, Maharashtra-442 605. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or . t-- )-"-- direction, setting aside the order of the 6th Respondent in so far as denying the Refund of Rs. 'l3,01,3'l ,7591 for the period Juty, 2017 to March, 2019 by the impugned order, passed in Appeat No.
HyR:/Refund Appeat/HyR_Dept-02, dated 12. 10. 2020 as illegal, arbitrary, unfair and contrary to raw and to direct the Respondents 1to 5 to refund the excess TDS recovered in a sum of Rs. 27 ,06,44,178/- to the Petitioner together with interest under Section 56 of the GST Act with effect from the date of refund application till the date of actual payment WRIT PETITION N O: 19411 OF 2020 Between: M/s. L and T PES JV,. R. ep. by its project Manager, Arlr. M. V. Ramakrishna Raju, Mahadevpur Mandal Crcnltruction'of MeO igaEaa B;;rrd, M;h;,i;;d; Ambatpally, Jayashankar-505 504. .. ,PETITIONER AND I 1 1 Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Siricilla, Karimnagar District. 2 State. of Telangana, ! Rep. principal by its Secretary to Government, Revenue ! (u r- ) uepartment, Ielangana Secretariat. Hyderabad. i I 3 Union of lndia, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Finance Department, New Delhi. l i 4 lrrigation Project. Corporation Limited, 1st Ftoor, T^?
l^e^t*ggf West Btock, l Jarasouona Uutt0tng, Erramanzil, Hyderabad_500 092, Telangana. t i 5 Stateof Telangana, Rep. by Jts Executive Engineer, lrrigation and Command - Area i Development, JalisoJdha Building Errjmanzit. niOera,,ao Soo OAZ, TG, t) Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Divisron, Hyderabad 7 State of tt{flr sltra, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, 19 Revenue (CT-ll) Depa(ment, Maharastitra Secretariat. Mumbai. 8 Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Gadchiroli Range, GST Bhavan, Area, Near Collector Office, potice 9. or-rpt"* Opp iiejJ'euarlers, Maharashtra-442 605. RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the 'cJurt circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High may oe pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, setting aside the order dated 1211oi2o20 of the 6th Respondent in so far as denying the Refund of Rs. 5,56,88,300!
for the period April, Zdtg to July, 20i9 passed in Appeal No. HYR:/Refund 'untair AppeariHyR-Dept-O3 as iflegar, aroitra ry, and contrary to law and to direct the Respondents '1 to 5 to refLrnd the excess TDS recovered in a sum of Rs. 1 0,'l 2,54, 1 1 6^ to the petitioner together witn rnterest under Section 56 of the csr Act with effect from the date of rJfun,l apptic;tio; tili the date of actual payment Counset for rhe petition"f. -S_]R,. . KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY tN ALL THE WRIT PETTTIONS Counsel for the ResDondent Nos. 1&g: Gp FOR COMMERCIAL TAX IN ALL THE WRIT PETITTONS Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2,6&7: Gp FOR REVENUE IN ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS Counsel for the Resoondent NO. 3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. IN ALL THE WRIT PETITIoNS scjLicnoir. L:Lrv. ERAl oF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent NOs. 4&5: Gp FOR IRR|GATION IN ALL THE WRIT PETIT]ONS The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE P.
SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NOs. 19376 &1941L OF 2020 COMMON ORDER: (per Ho ble Sri lustice Laxmi Narayata Alishetty) Writ Petition Nos. 19376 and 19411 of 2020 are filed bv the Petitioner-M/s. L&T PES to ]V set aside the impugned orders of the 6th Respondent-Appellate Joint Commissioner (S'l') utde Appeal No. tIYR/Refund Appeal/HYR-Dept-02, dated 12. 1. 0. 2020 insofar as denying the refund of Rs. 13,01,31,759 - io. r the period / from July, 2017 to March, 2019; and Appeal No. FIYR/J? efund Appeal/HYIt-Dept-03 dated 12. 10. 2020 insofar trs clenying the rcf und of Its 5,56,88,300/- for the perior1 from April, 2019 :o J u ly, 2019 respectively and to direct the respondent Nos I to 5 hercin kr refund the excess TDS recovered, to the Petitioner 2. Since thr: issue arise out of construction of a barrage lu.
orks conEact) at Medigadda, Telangana, undertaken bv thc petitioner in both the writ petitions, we decided to hear both the writ petitions together and dispose of the same bv n. ay of this conlmorl () rdLrr *P tu te)76 & |e! 11 t'l )o)t) 3. For convenience/ we are reierring to the facts in Writ Petition No. 19375 of 2020. Venture 4. The petitioner is an unincorporated Joint 0V), & Toubro Ltd (L&T) and comprising of two partners viz. , Larsen PES Private Limited.
The petitioner has received a contract from 5th Respondent-State of Telangana for construction of Medigadda Irrigation Barrage at Kaleshwaram, State of Telangana The petitioner has been chosen to execute the project based on the 1'he proiect is technical qualification criteria of thL' Partners' sponsored by the State of Telangana, but the execuhon of conLract is spread between the States of l elarrgana and also Maharashtra; 23 08 2016 that there was a specific Inter-Board Agreement dated Maharashtra States through signed by both Telangana ancl purpose a special utility vehicle Hon'ble Chief Ministers. For this called as Kaleshwaram Irrigation Project corproration I-imited (hereinafter referred to as 'KIPCI-') i e , respondent no 4 was formed. 4. 1.. The work executed bv the petitioner is a r'r'orks contract as &fined in Section 2(1'19) of the Ccntral Coods and Service Tax PsK J & I,NA. ] wP N. ter76& t?
tt1 tl)o)t) Act,2077 (CGST Act) as well as State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (SGST Act); that petitioner being a separate legal entity has obtained GST registration under both the Acts in the State of Maharashtra and the State of Telangana; that since the project is spread across two States, the liability has to be discharged to the extent of work executed in both states and as such obtained registration. It is averred that petitioner is a pass-throu5;h entity and the actual execution of works conkact is done by the parlners viz. , L&T Ltd. , and PES Engineers Ltd. , who are inde:pendent registerecl dealers both in the State of Telangana and in Lhe State Maharashtra. Petitioner has been reporting the hrrnovers accortlinglr,, in the respective states and filing GSTR 38 r(,turns as per Rule 61 of CGST Rules in both the states 1.
2 As the huge amount of working capital has been blocked in electronic cash ledger of the petitioner, it had made application undcr Ser:tron 49(6) of the CGST Act for refuncl of Rs27,06,11. 178l- for the year 2017 to March, 2019 luly, Hon'e,r,er, refund application was rejected by 1. t respondent bv orcler datcd 13. 01. 2020. The 1,t respondent, while admitring that :1: wP No let? t I t9! r t. ,/)o2o the work was being executed in both States, however, had rejected the refund claim on the ground that the taxable value reported by the petitioner is far less than the amount actually paid by the 4th Respondent-Kaleshwaram project Irrigation Corpora tion Limited (KIPCL). 4. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 73. 07. 2020, petitioner preferred appeal before 6th respondent-Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad on 03. 02. 2010. In the appeal, petitioner questioned the refund rejection order as being contrary to Section 72 (3) of IGST Act.
It is averrecl that TDS provisions were inLroduced with effect from 01. 10. 2018 vide notif ication No. 50/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13. 09. 2018. However, 4th respondent has recovered the GST TDS on the entire contract value including the portion of work executed in the State of Maharashtra and deposited in the State of Telangana; that to the extent of work executed in the State of Maharashtra, petitioner has to discharge the liability in the State o[ Maharashrra towards CCST and SGST respectively; that TDS recovered on the value of the work pertaining to State o( Maharashtra canllot be retained by ISK ) & I,NA,J wP No. l%in 4 194 t. ,120)A the State of T'elangana merely because the conhact is funded by the Telangana State, which is the basis for rejection by, the 1s respondent; that as per proviso to Section 51, no deduction is required to be macle if loca tion of the supplier and place of supply is in State which is different from the State of the registration of the recipient.
Therefore, 4m Respondent is not required to rlecluct tax under Section 51 since the location of Petitioner and p'rl16g of supply is in Maharashtra while the recipient is in Telangana 4. 4. As a consequence of refund rejection order, the 1't responclcnt alscr to raise a demand 1-)r1rp6sscl of Rs. 14,28,54,710 / -towards CCSI & SGST for the period April, 2019 to Julv, 2019 Though the petitioner filed reply claiming that the demanrl is not sustainable since the ['DS deducted by 4tt respondent was to be depositecl pr()por tionate to the State of Telangana and State of Maharashtra baserl on actual value of work executed in two states. Petr tiolrer . r lso placed reliance on a letter dated 13. (11. 2020 of thc F. rectrtivc Errgineer, Irrigation and Command Area Developrnent of Nledigadda that TDS under GST Act has been tfP r,,r tet16& te! t recovered by the conhactee on total value of the work done the territories of Maharashha and Telangana, but has deposited entirely in State of Telangana.
In fact, as the contractee is not having its existence in the territory of Maharashtra, could not have recovered the TDS on the value of work done and billed in the territory of Maharashtra' It is further averred Petitioner has filed an appeal against the Refund Reiection dated 30. 01. 2020 before the 6th respondent and requested authority to await the decision of the 6th resPondent. 4. 5. By the additional reply, dated 06. 032020, petitioner submitted that it is entitled for refund of the excess TDS the Electronic Cash Ledger, since it represents the corresponding to the value of the work executed in the Maharashtra. Such tax ought to be paid by the 4tt' Respondent CGST and SGS'| the Maharashtra Government towards bitling for the work done in Maharashtra and work done State of Telangana is separate and the approval is also the 5th respondent to pay the two bills independently value of the contract executed in the Maharashtra State /'\X,.
t & LN1_J bl' ND 193,6& tglt 7 I oJ 2o2o in the State of Maharashtra and such tax is discharged independently, the excess credit lying in the Electronic Cash Ledger shouid be refunded to the petitioner. In any event, based on the improper remittance of TDS by the 4th respondent, there cannot be an assessment by determining the turnover by back-calculation. Accorclinglv, the petitioner requested the 1. t respondent to defer further proceedings fill disposal of the appeal 4. 6. It is averred that to thc utter surprise of Petitioner, 1't respondent confin. ned the liability by the impugned proceedings dated 13. 03. 2020 in Form GSl DRC-07. The reply filed by the petitioner has L-',ecn relectccl; along with the summary order, a demand notice \vas issuccl for payment of Rs. 1,4,28,54,11,0/-dated 13. 03. 2020, rvhert-in the time for payment was given till 20. 03. 2020, failrng n,hiL'l'r, rccovery proceedings would be initiated against tht: pgti11616. 1. However, against the order dated 13.
03. 2020, petitiorrer filerl \\'. 1'. No. 6277 of 2020 before this Cour! that this Court issuccl noticr. on 20. i13. 2020 to the respondents and stayed the operatior-r of the orcler till 13. 06. 2020 . l I PSI<,J & LfI J tfP No. t9r6 & lerl t oI)020 ::8:: 4. 7. While so, the 6th respondent disposed of the appeal filed by the Petitioner, vide order, dated 12. 10. 2020. The 5th respondent, by referring to the provisions of the CGST/SGST and IGST Act, held that the petiLioner has liability to take fegistration and report the turnovers based on the quanfum of work that took place in the State of Telangana and State of Maharashtra separately. That it is an intra-state supply of services, both in State of Telangana and in the State of Maharashtra; that petitioner was held to be eligible to claim credit for the taxes collected from it in the invoices raised by the two constituent entities of The J. V. approach of the 1.
t respondent bo dismiss the submissions of petitioner, without applying the provisions of the Act and assessing the entire turnover of the petitioner in the State of i Telangana is liable to be declared as illegal. I I I j I 4. 8. However, the 6th respondent while reconciling the I I I I ! turnovers of taxes between those determined by the 1st I ! l l respondent and furnished by the petitioner, has sought aPPortion l the TDS amount partly to the State of Telangana, based on the proportion of the output tax reported in Telangana and likewise I'IK,. I & I,NA,J hr N. ). te 76R te t. ,lt02o for the State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,55,65,8L6 / -was calculated and deciared to be eligible as 'felangana; refund for the State of that in the said process, the refund has been reiected for Rs. 5,56,88,300/ -. Hence, the writ petition 5. The 6th respondent fileci counter in W. P. No.
19376 of 2020 and contended that if the contention of the petitioner that they executed the work of construction of barrage is to be accepted the deduction of tax as per thc provisions of Section 51 of CGST Act by the contractee was erroneous- l'l-rat Section 51(1) states that no deduction shall be made if the location of the supplier and place of supply is in a state or ur-rion [crritor\. , which is different from State or (as the case rna" bo) union tcrritory of registration of the recipient. Despite the said proi,iso, the 4th respondent deducted the tax. The writ petitionc. r cl itl not rlisclose any reason as to why he did not make any reprcsentation to the 4th respondent on the said proviso 5. 1. It is contendec{ tha t irr ttrt, rcf und rejection ol. der, 1st respondent, as proper office'r', inclicatecl the liabilities, ho.
razever, at I PSKJ t( L\i1) hl'tio l9l7n& t91t t tl l|ltt the time of refund reiection order under appeal before 6ff respondent, there was no demand raised by the proper officer' Subsequently, the 1'r resPond ent inttr alia relying on the facts of the case as to the place of supply and deduction of tax by the contractee, raised the demand in form GST DRC-07, which was not appealed before the 6th resPondent, rather, W'P'No'6299 of 2020 was filed before this Court. Petitioner did not file a regular appeal against the said order for the reasons best known to him and also did not inform the facts relating to raising of the demand and the recourse under taken by the petitioner' Thus, the remarks made by 6th resPondent white rendering the decision in the appeal f iled for reiection of refund claim, cannot be applied to the lis pending before this Court in an altogether different case i e'' W. P. No.
6299 of 2020, particularly when such remarks were passed bv 6d' Respondent while standing at a different stage o{ litigation with different set of facts on hand' did not make out any case 5. 2. It is contcnded that petitioner this Court for the warranting invocation of special of iurisdiction that the 5th resPondent is a reasons submitted by 6th respondent; r'sxJ &Llt,4J trP ,\. 19J1t & t91t1a[2o20 :: I l:: creature under Telangana State GST Act. The 6th respondent can examine and dispose of the appeals filed within the state of Telangana. That 6th respondent has no jurisdiction to examine the transactions of other states including the State of Maharashtra. As proiected by the petirioner, the disputed TDS amount on which the writ petitioner claims refund relates to the works executed in the State of Maharashrra and accordingly, the 6rh respondent rejected the claim of refund of TDS amount relating to works executed by the petitioner in the State of Maharashtra 5. 3.
It is contended that the petitioner should have approached the 46 respondent to resolve its problem as petitioner itself lays blame on 4th respondent. With regard to the re'furrd of amount, the 66 respondent examined the issue of refuncl of TDS amount only to the extent it relates to the work executecl in the State of Telangana, but not the entire TDS amount as claimed by the petitioner. Ihough petitioner claims to have independently discharged the liability in the State of iVlaharashtra, it is not for the 6th respondent to examine the veracitv of the claim; that there PSX-J ttt2 vP &LN,4 Nn t9t764. tct {i 4 20ri ' was no liability to discharge independently by tlre petitioner in the State of Maharashtra 5. 4. It is averred that 6th respondent adopted tlre proportionate method to grant refund because the pedtioner did not fumish the details of quantum of TDS relating to Telangana work, out of TDS amount.
The 6tn respondent in its order clearly men[oned that the refund of excess TDS relating to Maharashtra works should be claimed from Maharashtra Statc. That there was no arbitrariness in the order passed by 6rh responden| that as far as the refund of I TDS amounts is concerned, it is a accompli because fait the entire TDS amount was adjustecr against the additionar demand raised for the reasons, adverted to in DRC_7 proceedings, including and Iimited to the prace of suppl1.. provisions, intent of contractee and the nafure of the contract as assessed by the 1,t respondent and finally prayed to dismiss the w,rit petitions. 6. Heard Mr. S. Dn,arakanath lcarned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M_Covind Rcddy, [earned standing counsel for Commercial Taxes apprearing for the l,t respondent. rrt \i, tot; :: I J:: & tetl t oJ rua 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the 6th respondent ought to have directed refund of the entire amount of Rs.
27,06,44,178/- as claimed by the petitioner. Thar the 6rh respondent failed to see that the petitioner has indeper-rdently discharged the liability in the State of Maharashtra. In the absence of availability of any TDS deposited by lstrespondent insofar as their share which falls in the State oI Maharashtra to respondent 'tDS Nos. 3 and 7, the 6tr respondent denied the to the petitioner without any notice; that 6th respondent erred in holcling tlrat TDS amount relating to Maharashtra registration to be claimec before 7tr, respondent. That the 6th respondent failecl to set,the atrmitted case of respondent Nos. 1 and 4, that entire tax amount was -l-e[an11. tna remitted to Telangana State for the reason that State is funding the project; and that 6tl respontlent rvronglv rt mrtted TDS even in respect of Maharashtra works to the cr:dit of Petitioner's regishation in Telangana State and finallr. , ;rraved to direct the respondent Nos.
1 to 5 to ref u ncl tht, erces s l'DS recovered in a sum of Rs. 27,06,44,778 / - to the petitioner krgether rvith interest. ->. I rll l PSKJ dIfuJ t4 wf No 19J76& 10! oJ )U0 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that there is no dispute that the work done by the petitioner is spread across two States i. e. , Telangana and Maharashtra. That now the issue is about fixing the place of supply; and as per the scheme of GST, exactly half of the arnount of taxes collected goes to the particular State Government based on the place of supply and remaining half of the amount of taxes goes to the Cenhal Government. Therefore, fixing thc'lrlacL. ,) of suppty' is paramount I I in adjudicating the issue as to w,hich State I Government treasury ; I gets the tax and to what extent. 9.
It is further contended that basecl on some sample invoices, petitioner hied to show that it had billed a non-existent entity in Maharashtra; that the contentiorls of petitioner itsell in representing to the 1sr rcspontlcnt arrcl also in the affidavit of W. P. No. 6299 of 2020 nail a lie; that aclmittedly, the Govemment of Telangana, which entered into contract with the petitioner, does not have any existence in the State of Maharashtra. That the said fact was admitted bv the petitioner and asserted by the that since fttitioner Government of Telangana does not have any Br i, ter1. r teJ11. l! t! t :: l5:: existence in the State of Maharashtra, it could not have deducted any TDS.
That as admitted by the petitioner and 4th respondent, the total cost of the project was bome by the Telangana Government and there was no bifurcation of payment in respect to the work done in Maharashtra or Telangana territorit"s That since the'place of supply' entirely falls under the Telangana State as per the Act, the petitioner, who got registered in Telangana State, should have shown tl:re full turnover in its GSTR 38 returns' but it failed to do so. 10. [t is contended that the petitioner if at all anv tax in Paid Nlaharashtra as claimed, it can always seek a refund, bu c'rnnot cleny the taxes due in the State of Telangana as per the scheme of CGSI/SCS'| and IGST Act. That the aggrieved person calr aln'avs file an trppeal agarnst any decision or order by an aclju'"licating authority. Further, the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy of appeal available under the Act.
That without availing such remccly, the writ is not maintainable ancl firrallv, Petition prrayecl to dismiss the writ petition. . -/ { W? Nr t9116 & t91l l aJ )D0 :: l6:: Consideration: 11,. The issues that fall for consideration are as to, (i) whether refund application submitted by the petitioner is maintainable in view of the order of 6th respondent ancl (ii) whether (tt' respondent has jurisdiction to refund the tax deducted by 4th respondent for the proportion of work executed in the State of Maharashtra. -1. 2. It can be observed that the tax was declucted by the 4th respondent from the bills raised in rcspect of rvorks carried in both the states. However, the entire decluctctl tax amount has been remitted to the State of Telangana as a result of which excess amount is lying in the electronic cash ledgt'r of the petitioner.
Taking into account the excess arllount in ledger, the 1 respondent had rejected the claim for refund of excoss tax on the ground that the petitioner is liable to pav hugc tar in terms of GST DRC 07 and thereafter, raisetl allcl itit'rn. r l clemand for payment of tax. f\K. t d t. Nl J wt'. \o let)' a tet t t ol ! 20 ::17:I 13. However, the 6th respondent set aside the order of 1't respondent and held that 1st respondent had ignored the provisions of IGST Act and erroneously rejected the claim for refund. The 6th respondent also held that petitioner was required to have regrsrration and report the turnover based on the quantum of rvork exccuted in both the States and as the service provided by the petitioner is in the nature of an intra-state supply, the petitioner was eligible to claim refund of tax credit collected from invoices raised by hvo independent J. V.
parfners TIre 6th responclent also held that petitioner JV is eligible for the refund of the t'DS amount relating to the work executerl in the 'tDS State of Telarrgana only under Telangana registra tion. T he amount relating to Maharashtra regishation should be claimed in that State 14. Since the rrature of supply is of the intra-stale in respective States, thc tax liability shall be discharged individually in each State equivalent [o the work executed in respective states. As such thc tar iiabilitr, for the work executed in Telanganashall bc pavable in Tclangana. It is pertinent to note that petitioncr JV { I qt , trt'n IE t e t. l tnt1t:( failed to place on record inter se agreement entered between L&T and PES with regard to works allotted and executed by each partner. It is contended that a JV is pass through entity and in fact the project works were executed by the partners of JV independently.
Also further contended that partners of raises JV bi[[s in favour of the JV and which in turn raises bills in favour of 4th respondent by taking input credit 15. Since no material is piaced on record with regard to proportion of work executed by each partner of ]V independently, it is not possible for this court to determine the proportion of work executed in both States anci tax liabilitv thereof. It is contended by the petitioner that tax liability has been discharged independently for the works executed in the State of Maharashtra, however, the petitioner failed to produce arry material on record evidencing discharge of tax liabilitv in the State oI Maharashka. 76. As far as the issue of refund for the perioci October, 2018 to March, 2019 and April, 20'19 to July, 2019 is concerned, it is imperative for us to determine the place of supplv of serviccs. As ::-: ) iKJ I. L\A'J Wl'N. 19t76 d t9t1t .
[ )Do :: l9: case at hand' Section 12(3) of IGST Act is applicable to the Present both the States and the nature of the place of supply shall be services proportionate to the value of supply is inh'a-state in rendered or dctermined in respective States' filed two writ i'e 17. The pctitioners had meanwhile Petirions ' 2020 in respect of somewhat similar W. P. Nos. 6271 and 6299 of have been clubbed and were issue ancl the saicl two writ petitions of by separate common order heard together and are disposed dated 29. 11. 2024 I Conclusiorr 18. ['he pr<'sent writ petitions were also clubbed together along with the above said two rn'rit petitions. In view of the common order passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions i'e W'P'Nos 6271 ancl 6299 of 2020, we are of the considered oPinion that the common order so passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions shall govern so iar as the claim of the petitioner in the present writ petitior-rs are concemec'l Therefore, the demand notices dated 13. 03.
2020 shalt be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the refund ,J PSK,] & IN! I 20 trt) No rslr6& ts! 11oI)D0 application in accordance with the order in two writ pehtions i. e. , W. P. Nos. 6271 and, 6299 of 2020. Respondent No. 1 should take a decision in respect of additional demand depending on the outcome of refund application. 79. With the above observations, the Writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending Miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed SD/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER To, 1. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Siricilla, Karimnagar Distnct. 2. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. The Secretary to Government, Finance Department, New Delhi. 4. Kaleshwaram lrrigation Project Corporation Limited, 1st Floor, West Block, Jalasoudha Building, Erramanzil, Hyderabad-SOO 082, Telangana. 5.
The Executive Engineer, lrrigation and Command Area Development, Jalasoudha Building, Erramanzil, Hyderabad-S0O 082, TG. 6. Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad 7. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Maharashtra Secretariat, Mumbai. 8. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Gadchiroli Range, GST Bhavan, Complex Area, Near Collector Office, Opp. Police Heid Quarters, . 0. a:r tt/aharashtra-442 605. 9. One CC to SRL KARTHIK RAt\ilANA PUTTAI\,4REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CCs to GP FOR COIVMERCIAL TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] \ 11. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 12. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC] 13. Two CCs to GP for IRRIGATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 14. Two CD Copies KKS GJP HlGH COURT DATED:2911112024 t I COMMON ORDER rir- STAI€ WP. No.
19376 of 2020 & 19411 of 2020 1 ( \. i tr i Lu a \i. * ':l \ :\- : Pr,; r DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ L t
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.