Agreement With Supplier Stating He Would Pay GST Is Not Tenable to Avoid RCM Liability | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 26 April, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Devendra Kumar Singh Contractor vs. Union of India - [2025] 173 taxmann.com 627 (Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Arun Bhansali, CJ. & Kshitij Shailendra, J.
-
Sanjeet Kumar Yadav for the Petitioner.
-
Anant Kumar Tiwari & Ankur Agarwal (SC) for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a taxpayer, was issued a show cause notice by the department for non-payment of GST under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM). The show cause notice was issued due to the petitioner’s failure to deposit GST on a specific transaction. The petitioner responded to the notice by asserting that, under the work order agreement with the supplier, the supplier had agreed to pay the GST, and therefore, the petitioner should not be held liable for its payment under RCM. The petitioner’s contention was that the reverse charge mechanism allowed the supplier to assume responsibility for GST payment, thus absolving the petitioner from liability. However, the department rejected this defence, concluding that the petitioner’s failure to deposit the GST, based on the agreement with the supplier, resulted in the non-payment of the correct amount of tax. Consequently, the department issued a demand for the unpaid GST, disregarding the agreement between the petitioner and the supplier. The petitioner filed a petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the demand raised by the department.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the agreement between the petitioner and the supplier, stating that the supplier would bear the GST, could not absolve the petitioner from the statutory liability to pay GST under the reverse charge mechanism. The Court held that the liability remained with the petitioner as per the statutory provisions. The petitioner’s failure to cite a relevant notification under Section 9 of the GST Act meant the plea based on the agreement was rejected. The Court reinforced that private agreements cannot override statutory tax obligations.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
