IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23603 OF 2024 Between: M/S Siddartha Constructions, H. No. 4-24-44-4, Kadapa Main Road, Pulivendula, YSR Kadapa District - 516390, Rep. by its Managing Partner, T. Sidda Reddy. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Andhra Pradesh High Grade Steels Limited (Presently Ysr Steel Corporation Limited), Government of A.P. Undertaking, 9**^ Floor, APIIC Tower-1, IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2. The Chief Engineer, Andhra Pradesh High Grade Steels Limited (Presently YSR Steel Corporation Limited), 9‘^ Floor, APIIC Tower-1, IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh., 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Industrial Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction V ' ' M 0 more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the action of * ttie First and Second Respondents in not releasing the differential rate of GST @ 6% (i.e., 18% - 12%) on the Works Contracts executed by the Petitioner for APIIC, even though the said Works are not eligible for concessional rate of tax @ 12%'as clarified by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Andhra Pradesh, in the Petitioner's own case vide AAR No. 03/AP/GST/2022, dated 24-01-2022, and APIIC Ltd.s own Inter-Office Memo vide lOM No. APIIC/FW/GST/2020-21, dated 01-04-2020, has directed to implement GST @ 18% in respect of all works contracts issued by APIIC where the contractor obtains Advance Ruling from the GST Department for payment of GST @ 18%, is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law and illegal and consequently direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to release the differential GST Amount coming to Rs. 8,66,264/- to the Petitioner forthwith with interest. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 to release the differential GST @ 6% for the Works Contracts executed by the Petitioner for APIIC with interest. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 & 2: RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER: •% 9 1 APHC010456662024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23603/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Siddartha Constructions AND Andhra Pradesh High Grade Steels Limited Presently Ysr ...RESPONDENT(S) Steel Corporation Limited 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 Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) course of his The petitioner undertakes works contracts. In the business, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with 1®' respondent 2 dated 23.11.2020. The turnover relating to this works contract, was the subject matter of assessment which is presently disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the petitioner, under the impression that the 1®Vespondent-Corporation is a Government entity and entitled to the concessional rate of GST at 12% by virtue of Notification No.11/17, dated 28.06.2017, Notification No.20/2017, dated 22.08.2017 and Notification 2. No.24/2017, dated 21.09.2017 had been paying GST @ 12%. Subsequently, the tax authorities insisted on payment of GST @18% on the ground that the benefit of the said notifications would be available only to such persons who are supplying goods or services to the Government entities directly and the said benefit could not be available for government corporations. On account of this stipulation by the authorities, the petitioner was called upon to pay GST @ 18%. It was on this question that the petitioner had approached the 3. authority for advance ruling on clarification as to the rate of tax payable by the petitioner. The Authority for Advance Ruling had held that the petitioner was liable to pay GST @ 18% being 9% under Central GST and 9% under State GST. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, on account of this ruling had paid GST @ 18% and would therefore, be entitled for recovery of the differential amount of 6% from the 1®* respondent. 3 Despite service of notice, there has been no appearance for the 1®* respondent and as such, the matter is being taken up for consideration on the merits of the case. 4. There is no doubt that the petitioner is liable to pay GST @ 18% on the taxable turnover arising out of the contract with the 1®* respondent. However, the 1®* respondent had only reimbursed @12% instead of 18%. The contention of the petitioner that the contract between the petitioner and the 1 respondent required the 1®* respondent to reimburse the entire amount of GST paid by the petitioner, has not been contradicted. In such circumstances, it must be held that the 1®‘ respondent was liable to reimburse the petitioner to the extent of the GST paid out by the petitioner and accordingly, the 1 respondent is liable to reimburse the petitioner the differential amount of GST @ 6%, for the period for which the petitioner ended up paying GST @ 18%. Needless to say, if interest is recovered from the petitioner for late payment, by the GST authorities, the same shall be reimbursed by the 1®' respondent. 5. St St St Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1 respondent to reimburse the petitioner to the extent of the differential amount of GST paid by the petitioner over and above the GST which has been reimbursed by the 1®^ respondent on account of the works executed by the petitioner under the contract with the 1®' respondent. 6. 4 The said exercise to be completed within a period of three 7. months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh High Grade Steels Limited of A.P. (Presently YSR Steel Corporation Limited), Government Undertaking, 9 Floor, APIIC Tower-1, IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, 2. The Chief Engineer, Andhra Pradesh High Grade Steels (Presently YSR Steel Corporation Limited), 9 Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh., 3. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Industrial Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, Union of India, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 5. OneCCto SRI. G NARENDRA CHETTY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI PASALA PONNA RAO GENERAL OF INDIA [OPUC] 8. Three CD Copies Limited th Floor, APIIC Tower-1, IT DEPUTY SOLICITOR PRK high court DATED;19/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.23603 of 2024 Current S®cll*>n DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS