2018 Taxo.online 299

Writ Petition No.21272 of 2018 and WMP.Nos.24940 & 24941 of 2018 dated 21.08.2018





Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017


In favour of assessee

High Court


Represented by: – 

Petitioner: – Mr.Velayutham Pichaiya 

Respondent: – Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, Ms.Aparna Nandakumar & Mrs. G.Dhana Madhri 

Order: – 

Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 to 5, Ms.Aparna Nandakumar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the sixth respondent and Mrs.G.Dhana Madhi, learned Government Advocate (Tax) takes notice for the respondents 7 & 8.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsels for the respondents 1 to 5, and 6 and the learned Government Advocate (Tax) for the respondents 7 & 8.
3. The petitioner seeks to challenge the calculation of the Top Sheet regarding the petitioner’s bill dated 23.03.2018. According to the petitioner, the Top Sheet prepared is not reflecting in the actual tax paid by the petitioner under the GST and Chapter Heading No. 995421 referred to in the Top Sheet pertains to the General Construction Services and therefore, the petitioner will not fall under such services. By contending so, the petitioner made a representation dated 14.06.2018 before the fifth respondent seeking clarification, more particularly, with regard to the relevant Chapter Heading applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is stated that the said representation is not considered so far.
4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised very many grounds touching upon the merits of such clarification, as sought for by the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that in view of the letter of acceptance dated 31.07.2017, executed by the petitioner, they are bound to pay the GST as applicable from 01.07.2017 as per the provisions of the GST Act 2017. It is further stated that in case, if he seeks any clarification with regard to the rate of tax payable under the GST, they have to address their representation only to the concerned Official who prepared the Top Sheet viz., the Senior Divisional Engineer, West, Chennai Division. Therefore, it is contended that it is open to the petitioner to make such representation before the concerned Official and if any such representation is made, the same will be addressed accordingly.
6. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, more particularly, by considering the fact that the petitioner has raised an issue with regard to the Chapter Heading in consonance with the work executed by him, certainly, it is for the authorities concerned to clarify the same as, at this stage, this Court, is not inclined to go into such issue and express any view. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the contentions raised by this Court, this writ petition is disposed of, by giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the Senior Divisional Engineer, Chennai Division (West), within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the said official viz., the Senior Divisional Engineer, Chennai Division (West), shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders/communication on merits within a period of two weeks, thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 

Free Trial

Are you looking for the Latest Rules, Notifications, and Case Laws?

Book your 7 days free trial

Book Now