GST Paid on Advance Amount is Not to Be Retained by State if Contract is Cancelled Due to Breach of Contract | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 12 February, 2025
Case Details: Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-1) v. Nam Estates (P.) Ltd. - [2025] 170 taxmann.com 680 (Karnataka)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Krishna S. Dixit & G. Basavaraja, JJ.
-
N. Devdas, AAG & Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, AGA for the Appellant.
-
Vikram Huilgol, Sr. Counsel, Ms Krishika Vaishnav & Mahesh Chowdhary, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee entered into a contract with a supplier for supply, installation, and commissioning of Gas insulated Sub-stations (GIS)/Conventional Sub-stations and extra-high voltage transmission lines. An advance payment was made by the assessee and the supplier issued a tax invoice including GST. However, the supplier failed to deliver goods and services leading to cancellation of contract and advance was recovered invoking bank guarantee. The assessee filed a refund application seeking refund of GST amount paid along with necessary documents.
The department issued a notice indicating that the refund eligibility was not established and a refund rejection order was passed. The assessee filed appeal against the refund rejection order and the Appellate Authority held that the supplier was obliged to issue credit notes for cancelled contract and declare those in their tax return. Therefore, it was concluded that the assessee could not seek a refund of GST paid on advance and appeal was rejected. Thereafter, the assessee filed writ petition against the rejection of refund.
High Court Held
The Honorable High Court noted that the refund was sought of the amount paid in contemplation of execution of contract. Admittedly, the contract had been breached and the amount remitted to Exchequer by way of GST component in contemplation of discharge of contract could not have been retained by State when contract failed. Therefore, it was held that the order of rejection of refund was to be set aside and the department was directed to refund entire GST amount.
List of Cases Referred to
- Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited v. CCE (2015) 14 SCC 431 (para 5.3)
- Mafatlal Industries v. UOI (1997) 5 SCC 536 (para 5.4).
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