Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Siddartha Constructions vs The Ap Industrial Infrastructure ... on 6 November, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010456652024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3508]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 23471/2024
Between:
Siddartha Constructions ...PETITIONER
AND
The Ap Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited Govt ...RESPONDENT(S)
Of Ap Undertaking and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM
2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE The Court made the following order: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner had executed certain work contracts with M/s. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) and had been paying taxes under the GST regime @ 12 % on the turn over. However, the Authority for Advance Ruling, by an order, dated 24.01.2022, had held that the rate of tax payable by the petitioner was 18 % and not 12 %. 2
RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.23471 of 2024
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner had taken the contention that the petitioner is entitled to pay the tax @ 12 % by relying upon entry No.9954, which permitted tax to be paid @ 6 % under the CGST and 6 % under the SGST for contracts executed with Government authorities. The petitioner contends that M/s. APIIC would fall within the ambit of government authorities as specified under this entry.
3. The Authority for Advance Ruling rejected this contention and held that M/s. APIIC would not fall within the ambit of government authorities as specified in the said entry.
4. The petitioner has now approached this Court, with the contention that the petitioner is now being assessed with tax @ 18 %. But, M/s. APIIC had only paid 12 % tax and the remaining 6 % tax has not been paid by M/s. APIIC.
5. Sri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for M/s. APIIC would contend that M/s. APIIC had paid the tax which had been claimed by the petitioner in all its bills and consequently no complaint can be raised against M/s. APIIC.
6. The admitted fact is that M/s. APIIC, in its bills, had been reimbursing the tax paid by the petitioner, and work contracts executed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the additional rate of 6 % tax would also have to be reimbursed by M/s. APIIC.
3
RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.23471 of 2024
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, directing M/s. APIIC to pay the additional tax of 6 % to the petitioner within a period of two (02) months from the date of the petitioner submitting the necessary bills for the additional tax of 6 %. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.
________________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J 06.11.2024 MJA 4 RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.23471 of 2024 117 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.23471 of 2024 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 06.11.2024 MJA