Goutam Engineering Concern v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
Goutam Engineering Concern filed WPA No. 5150 of 2022 before the Calcutta High Court; judgment 14 September 2026. It performed electrical line repair and maintenance for West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., completing the work in 2015 before GST commenced. Billing and approval occurred in 2019; WBSEDCL withheld payment insisting on GST registration and tax invoices. The issue was the date of supply and whether completed pre-GST services could be taxed under CGST. The court held subsequent billing could not pull finished 2015 services into GST; withholding was wrongful. Payment was directed with interest, subject to deduction of any tax under the pre-GST regime. Outcome: assessee favoured. Sections 9 and 142 cited. Not legal advice. Government contractors should document completion dates and pre-GST invoices to resist post-facto GST demands on old works.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.9 — Levy of CGST; includes reverse-charge liability in notified cases.
- CGST S.142 — Miscellaneous transitional provisions.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee
Green Valley Sumo Taxi Stand Union Srinagar Dood Ganga v. Union Territory of J And K
Green Valley Sumo Taxi Stand Union Srinagar Dood Ganga filed WP(C) No. 1016 of 2023 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh; order 18 September 2026. The union operated taxi stands on public land under temporary allotment and paid rent to the administration. Respondents demanded GST on rental periods including years before GST came into force on 8 July 2017. The court held tax could not be levied retrospectively for pre-implementation rent; liability attached only from 8 July 2017 onward under Sections 1 and 9 read with transitional Section 174. Outcome: in favour of the assessee for the pre-GST period. Relevant for government lease and land-allotment cases. Editorial summary; not legal advice. Dues for post-July 2017 rent remain payable with GST where applicable, separating valid current liability from invalid back demands.
In favour of the assessee
Smt. Lalitha S. v. Deputy Commissioner
Smt. Lalitha S. filed Writ Petition No. 24040 of 2026 (LA-RES) before the Karnataka High Court; order 13 August 2026. Compensation for compulsory acquisition of land with an attached structure for highway widening was paid through the Deputy Commissioner, who deducted GST from the award. The petitioner challenged the deduction as ultra vires. The court held compulsory acquisition is not a supply of goods or services under GST; no statutory authority permits charging GST on expropriation compensation. Deduction was invalid and refund directed. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Sections 7 and 9 CGST and Article 366 were discussed. CAs advising on acquisition awards should note this limitation on GST levy. Not legal advice. Acquisition authorities must gross up compensation without treating GST as a deductible element unless a specific taxable supply exists.
In favour of the assessee
Er. Roland S. v. Government of Karnataka
Er. Roland S., a Class-I civil contractor, filed before the Karnataka High Court (WP 105716/2026, 30 July 2026) seeking reimbursement of differential GST paid on government works awarded before GST replaced VAT. Sections 142 and 9 CGST and transition principles applied. Having executed state contracts and remitted incremental tax after transition, the petitioner acquired a legal right to reimbursement of differential liability attributable to GST introduction, with the State as recipient of works contract services bound by earlier rulings. The court directed verification and reimbursement of the differential confined to incremental GST transition impact, not unrelated tax increases. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Pre-GST government contractors in Karnataka may rely on this for recovery of transition-related tax from departments subject to proof of payment and contract terms.
See the decision
Executive Engineer v. M. Venkata Rao Infra Projects (P.) Ltd
The Executive Engineer filed a writ appeal before the Karnataka High Court (WA 1947/2025, 29 July 2026) concerning withholding of differential GST on municipal works executed under the earlier VAT and service tax regime. Sections 142 and 9 CGST and Article 226 were raised. M. Venkata Rao Infra Projects had invoked arbitration under the contract, covering the reimbursement claim for transition tax. The Division Bench held the writ under Article 226 not maintainable where an arbitration clause exists and arbitral proceedings are pending, without adjudicating reimbursement merits on the writ side. Outcome: procedural dismissal of writ route. Contractors must pursue contractual arbitration rather than parallel writs when arbitration already covers GST differential claims, though Er. Roland S. remains relevant where no arbitration bar exists.
In favour of the revenue
State of Tamil Nadu v. I. Vetrivel
The State of Tamil Nadu filed tax revision petitions in TCR(MD) Nos. 23–30 of 2024 before the Madras High Court; decision 9 July 2026. The dispute concerned purchase tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and TN VAT on sand, gravel and jelly bought from unregistered dealers for use in works contracts. A Constitution Bench precedent supports such levy on goods not previously tax-suffered. The first appellate authority and Tribunal had annulled assessments; the High Court found those orders perverse and restored purchase tax under Section 7-A, holding it operates independently of Section 3-B on transfer of property in works contracts. Outcome: in favour of revenue. Pre-GST but relevant to works-contract material sourcing. Not legal advice. Contractors sourcing aggregates from unregistered quarries in Tamil Nadu remain exposed to purchase tax despite works-contract characterisation debates.