Case Details: Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Versus Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 33 Centax 306 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Pankaj Mithal, JJ.
- S/Shri R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, Rakesh Dwivedi, Arvind P. Datar, Sr Advs., Kumar Anurag Singh, Ashok Kumar Yadav, Zain A. Khan, Anup Kumar, Ms. Ekta Bharati, Advs.& Ms Tulika Mukherjee, AOR for the Petitioner
- S/Shri M.S. Mittal, Kavin Gulati, C. Aryama Sundaram, C.A. Sunderam, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr Advs., Salona Mittal, Ms Pragya Choudhary, Jitesh Malik, Byrapaneni Suyodhan, D. Narendra Reddy, Kumar Shashank, Dhiraj, Ashutosh Dubey, Aman Vachher, Akshat Vachher, Ms Abhiti Vachher, Advs., Satish Kumar & Ms Tatini Basu, AORs for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The assessee firms, being contractors, had executed agreements prior to the introduction of GST regime and thereafter filed writ petitions seeking reimbursement of GST paid on procurement of raw materials, intermediary components and bought-out items dispatched directly from sub-vendors to the work site. The department objected to reimbursement in respect of such indirect transactions, contending that GST impact on indirect procurements was not reimbursable and stood barred under clause 31 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC). The High Court held that once the restrictive stipulations in clause 10.7 of GCC were deleted, reimbursement of GST was no longer confined to direct transactions between the employer and the contractor, and therefore benefit of amended clause 10.7 of GCC could not be denied merely on the ground that notices inviting tenders were floated on different dates or that agreements were executed before the introduction of GST. The High Court further observed that entitlement to claim reimbursement on increased tax liability flowing from the GST regime was enforceable under section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, unless specifically barred by contract. Aggrieved, the department carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions (SLPs).
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that leave was granted in the matter and directed the department to deposit fifty per cent of the disputed amount within eight weeks before the Court. It was further directed that the amount so deposited shall be invested in an interest-bearing fixed deposit with a nationalised bank on auto-renewal basis until further orders. The Court ordered that the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand —[2024] 18 Centax 282 / [2024] 162 taxmann.com 475 (Jharkhand) — SLP Granted [Para 2]
