Telangana High Court
M/S Rcm Cargo Mover And Co vs Union Of India, The General Manager ... on 18 March, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P.No.9846 OF 2021
Between:
M/s RCM Cargo Mover & Company.
... Petitioner
And
The General Manager, South Central Railway
& another
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.03.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No.9846 OF 2021
% 18.03.2024
Between:
# M/s RCM Cargo Mover & Company
... Petitioner
And
$ The General Manager, South Central Railway
& another
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.Prasad Rao Vemulapati
^ Standing counsel for Respondents: Mrs.T.Suhasini
? Cases Referred:
3
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.9846 OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard Mr.Prasad Rao, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
Mrs.T.Suhasini, learned standing counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the
prayer as under:
"to issue an appropriate Writ or Direction more
particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the 2nd Respondent rejecting the claim of the Petitioner
to reimburse the GST amount of Rs.64,86,362/ paid by
it towards Goods and Service Tax as contrary to the
Railway Board letter No.2017/CE.I/C7/GST dated
27.10.2017 and the consequent Joint Procedural Order
No.W. 417/P/GST/2017 dated 30.11.2017 and other
orders issued from time to time by the competent
authorities and also a blatant violation of Article 14 of
Constitution of India and consequently direct him to act
in terms of the above circulars and reimburse the
Petitioner the GST amounts paid by the Petitioner to the
GST authorities."
3. PERUSED THE RECORD.
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
a) Guidelines dated 04.07.2016 vide FX/A07/TAXES
POLICY/VOL-IV/39 issued by the Office of the Financial
Adviser & Chief Accounts Officer, South Central
Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, read as under:
"In view of the justification furnished vide letter cited
above, Finance concurrence is hereby signified for
modification of service tax clause concurred by this
office letters of even no. dated 31.05.2016 and
25.03.2015 as following:
Concurred vide earlier Now modified as
letter of even no dated
31.05.2016
The Tenderer should submit e) The tenderer shall
the Service Tax Registration submit the particulars
certificate indicating Service of Service Tax
Tax Registration Number Registration i.e. Service
(STRN) along with theTax Registration
Tender. This will be a number, within 60 days
precondition for the agencies from the date of issue
to participate in the tenders. of LOA, or before
submission of CC1 bill,
whichever is earlier.
Concurred vide this office Now modified as
letter of even no. dated
25.03.2016
c) Actual service tax (without c) Actual service tax
interest) is applicable if any (without interest) as
will be reimbursed subject to applicable, if any, will
production of authentic be reimbursed subject
documentary evidence of this to production of
tax having been actually paid authentic documentary
to the Government of India evidence of this tax
by the contractor during having been actually
execution of work or before paid to the Government
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
passing of final bill. of India by the
indicate agreement No./ contractor during
Acceptance letter No. along execution of work or
with name of the work duly before passing of final
indicating the amount of bill.
service tax actually paid by include the
the contractor to the Govt. of receipt/challan of
India and this should be payment of service tax
produced either during the and a self certified
currency of the contract or statement with details
before passing the final bill. of contract i.e.
agreement
No./Acceptance letter
No. along with name of
the work duly indicating
the amount of service
tax actually paid by the
contractor to the Govt.,
which should tally with
the e-challan. (as per
the annexure enclosed)
This issues with the approval of FA
&CAO/G."
b) Letter dated 15.12.2016 vide No.AXP/Service Tax,
of Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer/G, reads
as under:
"The matter regarding applicability of service tax for
railway contracts has been reviewed with Tax
Consultants. Accordingly, the summary of services
which are taxable and which are exempted from service
tax is given in enclosed statement and Annexure -I
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
thereto. This may be carefully considered for
implementation in your unit/division.
In this regard, the following further course of
action may be taken:
I. FOR NEW CONTRACTS:
Service Tax should not be included for works where it is
exempted. Wherever it is applicable, the rates tendered
shall exclude service tax element. The standard
condition on service tax to be included in the tender
document will be as per this office letter
no.AFX/A07/Taxes/Policy/Vol.IV/39 dated 25.3.15 read-
with modifications advised vide letter dated 04.07.16
(Copies enclosed). This will ensure that all relevant
information regarding service tax are available while
making payment, while allocating the expenditure and
also for giving details to FA&CAO/Stores for claiming
CENVAT credit.
II. FOR EXISTING/RUNNING CONTRACTS:
Where element of service tax is indicated separately and
where service tax is being reimbursed at present but
not coming under the purview of service tax as per
present guidelines, further payment of service tax
should be stopped with prior intimation & acceptance
from the contractors, so that further liability is avoided.
For amounts already reimbursed, details should be sent
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
to FA&CAO/Stores for due consideration while claiming
cenvat credits.
III. Apart from the above, it may be ensured that
proper documentation and records on service tax paid is
maintained for a minimum period of five years excluding
the Financial Year to which the transaction relates to
facilitate periodical auditing by Service Tax authorities.
This is as per extant instructions of Railway Board
(Circular RBA No. 23/2012 No.2010/AC-II/1/3 Dated
29.06.2012) and Service Tax Rules, 2014. Further
amendments as and when issued should be followed.
c) Letter dated 27.10.2017 vide No.2017/CE-
I/CT/7/GST of Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts
Officer/G, Government of India, Ministry of Railways
(Railway Board) reads as under:
"2. Considering the above, it has been decided
to make existing works contracts awarded before
implementation of GST, as GST neutral after carefully
taking into account the input tax credit available to the
contractor, on a case to case basis, on production of
documentary evidence. This exercise may involve
reimbursement to contractors or recovery from
contractors depending upon the tax liability of the
contractor before GST and after GST including input tax
credit available to the contractor after GST."
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
d) Letter dated 30.11.2017 vide
No.W.417/P/GST/2017 of South Central Railway, Office
of the Principal Chief Engineer, Fifty Floor, Rail Nilayam,
Secunderabad, reads as under:
"As per Railway Board's letter No.2017/CE-
1/CT/7/GST dated 27.10.2017 existing Works/Services
contracts which were awarded/tendered before
implementation of GST to be made as GST neutral, duly
taking into account the Input Tax Credit (ITC) available
to the contractor.
In compliance to the Board's letter dated
27.10.2017, Joint Procedure Order No.01/2017, dated
29.11.2017 (including Annexure A & B), signed by PCE,
CAO/C and PFA. The JPO is vetted by Law Branch and
approved by GM is enclosed herewith for
implementation."
e) Letter dated 15.10.2020 vide No.A/X-
II/Correspondence of the 2nd Respondent addressed to
the petitioner, reads as under:
With reference to your grievance, regarding
reimbursement of GST amount along with service tax
under GST neutralisation scheme is not agreed due to
the following reasons:
1) As per PFA/SC's clarification letter cited above, "If
the agreement is exclusive of service tax and a clause
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
like 'reimbursement of the actual service tax paid by the
contractor may be allowed' is mentioned in the
agreement, then it is to be verified by your office
whether the contractor has obtained the Service Tax
Registration submitted the documentary evidence for
having remitted the service tax to the Government and
filed the service tax returns, and claimed any
reimbursement earlier as per the conditions of
tender/agreement. Service Tax can be reimbursed, only
if these agreemental conditions are fulfilled."
2) Agt No. 08/W/2017 was verified and it is observed
that, as per tender schedule rate includes cost of driver,
helper, fuel, e.g., Mobil oil, brake oil etc. along with
related repairs works and all types of taxes as
admissible by State or Central Governments, octroi, toll
tax, barrier tax etc.
3) Agt No.C/E.29/TRD/17/2016-17 was verified and it is
observed that as per Chapter-III special conditions of
contract para 3.2.11, wages of driver, repair charges
maintenance charges, break down charges, license,
taxes, cost of fuel, parking charges (other than Railway
Parking) etc., will be borne by the Tenderer only.
4) From the above, it is substantiated that the said
agreements are inclusive of all taxes, hence no
reimbursement of service tax shall be considered.
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
5) In GST neutralisation scheme, additional burden of
GST, over 15% service tax (18%-15%=3%) whether
paid or not is to be reimbursed. The same is reiterated
in PFA/SC's clarification on GST Neutralisation for
vehicle hire contracts to Sr.DFM/GTL."
4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the
averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed
in support of the present writ petition:
Petitioner is a partnership firm registered with the
Registrar of Firms, Ranga Reddy District (East) with
Registration No.1531 of 2013. The Petitioner has been
carrying on the business of supply of transport vehicles to
various Railway Zones of Indian Railways more particularly to
South Central Railway represented by 1st and 2nd
Respondents. The Government of India has introduced Service
Tax on the services rendered by the service provided and the
rate of such Tax is based on the value of the services
provided. Petitioner is in the business of providing transport
vehicles to various Railway Zones and the service so rendered
is taxable @ 18% of the Gross value of the contract (Service).
However prior to 01.07.2017 most of the services rendered to
Indian Railways were exempted from payment of Service Tax
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
and hence the Petitioner was not liable to pay any Service Tax
prior to the introduction of GST regime that came into force on
01.07.2017 or any time prior to that. Having regard to the
existing tax regime, the Service Tax which did not indicate the
quantum of tax, with a view to rationalize the tendering
process and to bring about uniform condition on Service Tax in
tenders, South Central Railway through its Financial Advisor
and Chief Accounts Officer issued a Circular on 25.03.2015.
It is further the specific case of the Petitioner that in
terms of the order dated 30.11.2017 the Contracts that were
entered into prior to 01.07.2017 are eligible for
reimbursement of Service Tax, if paid. The contracts that were
entered into after 01.07.2017 but for which tenders were
called prior to 01.07.2017 are also entitled for
reimbursement/recovery of GST as the case may be. The
Petitioner referring to letter dated 18.09.2018 and Clause
14(a) of Gazette Notification No.25/2012, dated 20.06.2012
and Clause (vi) of Notification No.9, dated 01.03.2016
contends that the services rendered by the Petitioner are
exempted from the umbrella of Goods and Service Tax and
that the Petitioner is not liable to pay any Service Tax. The
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
Petitioner during the course of its Voliton of Supply of
Transportation Services to South Central Railways and other
Railways entered into various agreements and the Petitioner
vide representations dated 25.04.2019 and 07.06.2019
addressed to the authorities concerned for reimbursement of
GST paid by it. The Petitioner through letters dated
18.09.2020 and 25.09.2020 requested the 2nd Respondent to
act in terms of Railway Board directive and also the period of
the orders passed by the Competent Authority of South
Central Railway with regard to Goods and Service Tax. But
however, the 2nd Respondent vide letter dated 15.10.2020
rejected the request of the Petitioner for reimbursement of
GST amount along with Service Tax under GST Neutralization
Scheme. Aggrieved by the same the Petitioner filed the
present Writ Petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions:
1. The rejection of the request of the Petitioner for
reimbursement of GST paid by it by the 2nd Respondent
is contrary to the guidelines issued by Railway Board
through general circular No.2017/E-I/CT/7/GST dated
27.10.2017.
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
2. The rejection of the request of the Petitioner for
reimbursement of GST paid by it by the 2nd Respondent
is contrary to the guidelines issued by PCE dated
30.11.2017.
3. The rejection by the 2nd Respondent to reimburse
the GST paid by the Petitioner is contrary to the letter of
FA & CAO bearing No. AFX/A07/Taxes/Policy/Vol.IV/39
dated 25.03.2015.
4. The 2nd Respondent could not have denied the
request of the Petitioner for reimbursement of GST paid
by it in violation of FA&CAO letter No.AFX/A07/TAXES
POLICY/VOL.IV/39 dated 04.07.2016.
5. The 2nd Respondent could not have rejected
reimbursement of GST contrary to the directions of
FA&CAO letter No.AXP/Service Tax dated 15.12.2016.
6. The 2nd Respondent failed to note that the
agreements in question were entered into prior to GST
regime and hence the phrase "inclusive of all taxes"
could not have been applied, as such inclusion would
automatically disqualify the tender.
7. The 2nd Respondent failed to consider the fact that by
virtue of general instructions and guidelines the Service
Tax element has to be quoted separately and it did not
form part of all taxes.
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
8. The main intention of GST neutralization scheme was
to lessen the burden of GST that was not in vogue when
the tenders were called for.
9. When the Executive specifically states that the
contractor need to be reimbursed the GST element as
that did not form part of the estimates, the 2nd
Respondent could not have taken a different view and
he is bound to follow the orders of his superiors and
particularly the orders of Railway Board.
10. The 2nd Respondent failed to note that in spite of
similar conditions in other agreements, the other
Divisions of South Central Railway, viz: Vijayawada,
Guntur, Guntakal and Nanded Divisions have
reimbursed the GST.
11. And finally it is not the case of the 2nd Respondent
that no GST was ever reimbursed by Secunderabad
Division. The letters submitted herewith would show
that the Secunderabad Division, more particularly the
2nd Respondent had reimbursed the GST paid by the
contractors but a different stand was taken in respect of
Petitioner for the reasons best known to him and thus
there is apparent discrimination against the Petitioner
and thus there is a deliberate violation of Article 14 of
Constitution of India.
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
12. Denial of lawful amounts due to the Petitioner is the
deprivation of its right to payment for the work done
and violates Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution of India.
6. Counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2,
in particular, paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14 and 15, reads
as under:
4. In reply to paragraph No.2, it is submitted that
Government of India has introduced Goods and Services
Tax (GST) w.e.f 01.07.2017. Hiring of Transportation
vehicles are taxable @ 18% under GST. However, it is
not true that this office has refused the firm's claim of
reimbursement of GST amount based on the Railway
Board's Circular dated.27.10.2017 followed by JPO
No.01/2017 Dated29.11.2017, which was superseded
by JPO No.01/2019 circulated vide Lr
No.W.417/P/GST/2019 Dated27.11.2019. This office
has reimbursed the eligible GST amount to the
contractor i.е., 3% tax amount (18% GST-15% Service
tax) as per the above Joint Procedural Order issued by
Headquarters of South-Central Railway.
5. In reply to paragraph no.3, it is submitted that
the petitioner has wrongly interpreted the Service Tax
Exemption extended to Railways. Railways were
exempted from Service Tax in terms of Para No.14(a) of
Mega exemption Gazette Notification No.25/2012 dated
20.06.2012 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
of India. The abstract of the said entry of the
Notification is reproduced herewith:
"14. Services by way of construction, erection,
commissioning or installation of original works
pertaining to (a) Railways, excluding monorail and
Metro".
In view of the above Notification, it is clear that
exemption is provided to construction, erection,
commissioning or installation of original works
pertaining to Railways and not for hiring of vehicles. In
terms of Para No.4 of the above said letter, applicability
of service tax for Hiring of Motor vehicles,
"Renting/Hiring of motor services (without transfer of
ownership) is taxable." Since Railways is not a business
entity registered as body corporate, but is Government
department, the reverse charge would not be attracted
and there is no need to pay service tax by the railways
as a recipient. The service tax shall be liable to be
discharged by the service provider. As such, this office
has reimbursed the difference of 3% tax (18% GST-
15% Service tax) to the contractor as per the above
Joint Procedural Order issued by Headquarters of South-
Central Railway.
6. In reply to paragraph No.4, it is submitted that the
Railway Board letter No. 2017/CE-I/CT/&/GST dated
27.10.2017 has been issued to address the modalities
of working out and reimbursement of Service Tax and to
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
introduce uniformity in computing, assessing, recovery
and reimbursement of service tax to the contractors.
The said Railway Board letter had been issued to "make
existing works contracts awarded before implementation
of GST, as GST neutral after carefully taking into
account the input tax credit available to the contractor,
on a case to case basis, on production of documentary
evidence. This exercise may involve reimbursement to
contractors or recovery from contractors depending
upon the tax liability of the contractor before GST and
after GST including input tax credit available to the
contractor after GST. Zonal Railways/Production Units
were advised to work out modalities through a
procedure order.
7. In reply to paragraph No.5, it is submitted that
with regard to the above Railway Board letter, a Joint
Procedural Order was issued through letter
No.W.417/P/GST/2019 dated 27.11.2019 for
neutralization of GST. In terms of Para No. 8.5 (e), "the
tax liability of the contractor before implementation of
GST shall be worked out taking into account all
stipulated taxes in force before GST implementation i.e.
Excise duty, VAT, including VAT on Excise Duty, Entry
tax, Octroi duty, prevalent service tax etc. "This is
irrespective of whether the same was paid by the
agency or not for each on account/FCC bill.
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
From the above, it is clear that applicable tax should be
taken into account before implementation of GST.
Difference between Service tax and rate of tax in GST
regime would be admissible for neutrality of GST under
above Procedural order. As such, this office has
reimbursed the difference of 3% tax (18% GST-
15%Service tax) to the contractor as per the above
Joint Procedural Order.
10. In reply to paragraph No.8 of the affidavit, it is
submitted that it is true that this office has rejected the
request of the firm to pay GST amount @18% paid by
petitioner, on the ground that all the agreements
entered with Railways were quoted by the agency as
"including all taxes" such as cost of driver, fuel, repair
works an all type of taxes as admissible by State or
Central Govts, Octroi, toll tax etc.
13. In reply to paragraph No.11, it is submitted that
in some of the cases of other departments, if it is
admitted by this office erroneously, the same are being
recovered from on hand bills or from Security Deposit of
the concerned firms/contractors.
14. In reply to paragraph No.12, it is submitted that
bifurcation details for the claim made i.e.,
Rs.64,86,362/- was not made available for verification.
15. Finally, it is to state that all the agreements
mentioned by the petitioner in writ petition, were
entered with Railways stating that all taxes, insurance
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
certificates, pollution certificates... etc., are to be borne
by the agency and the accepted rate is inclusive of all
the above. As such, the question of reimbursement of
GST@18% to the petitioner does not arise in the subject
case. Further, the amount reimbursed @3%tax
(18%GST-15%Service tax) to the firm is correct in all
respects.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION :
7. A bare perusal of para 10 and 11 of the reply
affidavit filed by the Petitioner to the Counter Affidavit
filed by Respondent No. 1 & 2 reads as under :
"10. It is to submit that pursuant to a request made by
the Petitioner under RTI Act, 2005, the 2nd Respondent
had furnished the information with regard to the GST
neutralization amount paid to the Petitioner through
letter dated 19.11.2020 a copy of which is submitted as
P20. From the said letter it is abundantly clear that the
Respondents reimbursed the entire GST amount paid by
the Petitioner to GST authorities without any deductions
and thus it is clear that the Petitioner was not liable to
pay any Service Tax prior to GST regime that came into
effect from 01.07.2017. It is to submit that in response
to a tender notice the Petitioner submitted its tender in
which it was specifically stated that the rates quoted
were exclusive of VAT, Service Tax, Building Cess as the
same are not applicable to the nature of work
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
undertaken by the Petitioner. The Respondents accepted
the said condition and awarded the contract. Now the
Respondents cannot be permitted to make a volte face
and state that the Petitioner is liable to pay Service Tax
in pre GST regime. A copy of the Tender submitted is
submitted as P21.
11. It is to submit that the Respondents have
reimbursed the following contractors towards
neutralization of GST in its entirety.
GUNTAKAL DIVISION:
1. M/s Gangi Reddy
2. M/s Syed Gouse
3. Sri Raj Kumar
4. Sri Raffiq
5. Sri M.Kishore
6. Sri Jeelani
7. Sri Srinivalsulu
8. Sri Khaleel
VIJAYAWADA DIVISION:
1. Sri P.K.Ranga Rao
2. Sir A.V.Lakshman Rao
3. Sri Ram Mohan Reddy
4. M/s RCM Cargo Mover & Co.
5. Sri K.Maniyam
GUNTUR DIVISION:
1. Sri D.V.Reddy
2. Sri P.K.Ranga Rao
3. A.V.Laxman Rao
HYDERABAD DIVISION:
1. Sri Narasing Rao
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
SECUNDERABAD DIVISION:
1. M/s Sir Bhadrakali Enterprises
2. M/s RCM Cargo Mover & Co. (paid and recovered)
3. M/s Shaik Abdullah
NANDED DIVISION:
1. M/s Surekha Goods Transport
2. M/s Sachindra Sainath Soneware
3. M/s RCM Cargo Mover & Co.
It is to submit that South Central Railway for
administrative purposes and ease of operation, is
divided into six Zones being controlled from its Head
Quarters at Secunderabad. The Railway Board Circulars
as well as the JPOs issued by the Head Quarters apply
equally to all the divisions and the divisions cannot act
independently and in difference to either the Railway
Board directives or that of South Central Railway Zonal
Head Quarters. The Petitioner understands that in other
Railway Zones also the GST paid by the Contractors is
being reimbursed in full. That apart, the 2nd
Respondent cannot discriminate the Petitioner from the
other contractors who are on the same plane.
8. This Court opines that though the Petitioner has
challenged the action of the 2nd Respondent in rejecting the
claim of the Petitioner to reimburse the GST amount of
Rs.64,86,362/- paid by the Petitioner towards Goods and
Service Tax as contrary to the Railway Board letter
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
No.2017/CE.I/C7/GST, dated 27.10.2017 and the consequent
joint procedural order No.W417/P/GST/ 2017, dated
30.11.2017, yet curiously Petitioner did not specifically
challenge the letter dated 15.10.2020 wherein Petitioner's
representations dated 18.09.2020 and 25.09.2020 regarding
reimbursement of GST amount along with service tax under
GST Neutralisation Scheme had been rejected by the 2nd
Respondent.
9. This Court opines that the representations of the
Petitioner dated 25.04.2019, 07.06.2019, 18.09.2020
and 25.09.2020 had not been considered as per the
letter dated 17.06.2019 of the Principal Financial
Advisor, SCR addressed to the 2nd Respondent which
clearly said that GST needs to be neutralized by
following the due procedure. The said letter dated
17.06.2019 is extracted hereunder :
"M/s. RCM Cargo Mover & Co./Secunderabad have
submitted representations on 25.04.2019 and 7.6.2019
regarding non-payment of GST Neutralization by SC
division duly adding service tax amount. Copies of the
same are enclosed herewith.
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
In this connection it is advised to verify whether
the particular contract of M/s. RCM Cargo Mover &
Co./Secunderabad is inclusive of service tax or not.
Accordingly, the additional tax burden due to
implementation of GST is to be neutralized.
If the agreement is exclusive of service tax and a
clause like 'reimbursement of the actual service tax paid
by the contractor may be allowed' is mentioned in the
agreement, then it is to be verified by your office
whether the Contractor has obtained the Service Tax
Registration, submitted the documentary evidence for
having remitted the service tax to the Government and
filed the service tax returns, and claimed any
reimbursement earlier as per the conditions of
tender/agreement. Service Tax can be reimbursed, only
if these agreemental conditions are fulfilled.
This issues with the approval of FA&CAO/IRIFM."
10. Taking into consideration the specific averments
made in the reply affidavit filed by the Petitioner in
particular at paras 10 and 11 referred to and extracted
above and duly taking into consideration the contents of
the letter dated 17.06.2019, this Court opines that the
Circular Instructions/Terms as per Railway Board letter
No.2017/CEI/C7/GST, dated 27.10.2017 and the
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
consequent Joint Procedural Order No.W417/P/
GST/2017, dated 30.11.2017 had not been applied in
considering Petitioner's representations dated
25.04.2019, 07.06.2019, 18.09.2020 and 25.09.2020
nor the periodical orders passed by the competent
authorities of South Central Railway with regard to
Goods and Service Tax, had been acted upon in
rejecting Petitioner's claim to reimburse the GST
amount of Rs.64,86,362/- paid by the Petitioner
towards Goods and Service Tax and the specific plea of
discrimination as put-forth by the Petitioner that the 2nd
Respondent had reimbursed the GST paid by the
Contractors, but however, a different stand is taken in
the case of the Petitioner has in fact not been explained
clearly in the counter affidavit nor in the proceedings
dated 15.10.2020 of the 2nd Respondent herein where
under Petitioner's request regarding reimbursement of
GST amount along with Service Tax under GST
Neutralization Scheme had been rejected.
11. Taking into consideration the above said facts and
circumstances of the case and duly considering the
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
averments made in the reply affidavit filed by the
Petitioner at Paras 10 and 11 and duly considering the
contents of the letter dated 17.06.2019 addressed to
the 2nd Respondent herein by the Principal Financial
Advisor, SCR the Writ Petition is allowed and the
Respondents are directed to reconsider the decision
dated 15.10.2020 vide No.A/X-II/Correspondence of
the DFM/SC in rejecting Petitioner's request regarding
reimbursement of GST amount along with Service Tax
under GST Neutralisation Scheme within a period of 4
weeks from today duly reconsidering Petitioner's
representations dated 25.04.2019, 07.06.2019,
18.09.2020 and 25.09.2020 in accordance to law and as
per Guidelines dated 04.07.2016 and 15.12.2016, duly
considering Railway Board Letter No.2017/CE.I/C7/
GST, dated 27.10.2017 and the consequent joint
procedural order No.W.417/P /GST/2017, dated
30.11.2017 (referred to and extracted above) and pass
appropriate orders by adhering to the principles of
natural justice by providing due notice and opportunity
SN,J
WP_9846 of 2021
to the Petitioner and communicate the decision to the
Petitioner. However there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________
SUREPALLI NANDA,J
Date: 18.03.2024
Note: L.R.Copy to be marked
(B/o) Yvkr
