Case Law Details

Case Name : Coimbatore Corporation Contractors Welfare Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P. NO. 24853 OF 2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 05/10/2017
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (6281) Madras High Court (609)

Coimbatore Corporation Contractors Welfare Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court)

Since CGST Act, 2017 came in force with effect from 1-7-2017, contract work for which agreements were executed prior to 1-7-2017, GST would not be imposed on same and 2 per cent VAT alone was applicable.

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 05.07.2017 10.07.2017, 11.07.2017 and 11.09.2017 by paying the payment of 12% GST in addition to the value of work done for all works contracts Viz

(i) for the contract work for which agreements were executed prior to 01.07.2017 and the work is in under progress,

(ii) for the tenders called and agreements executed after 01.07.2017 without any GST Provisions in the estimate and tender,

(iii) the levy of 12% GST provisions has to be included in the estimates itself for further tenders and has to be paid in addition to the value of work done for all works contracts as in the case of Southern Railways.


1. The petitioner is an association registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Act bearing Registration No.81/2012. The Association was formed for the Welfare of the members of the Road Contractors, who have been carrying on works for the National Highways and Highways department and other Governmental organisation.

2. The contractors used to remit 2% tax on value for the works executed by them towards the Works Contract Tax under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 [HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE TNVAT ] in terms of Section 6 of the TNVAT Act.

3. After the enactment of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 with effect from 01.07.2017, certain problems have arisen, which has compelled the petitioner to submit representations to the respondent.

4. The petitioner would state that on 22.08.2017, the Central Government issued notification notifying that 6% of the tax is leviable by the Central Government towards Works Contract.

5. The State Government is empowered to levy towards works contract tax in addition to the works contract tax imposed by the Central Government. Therefore, the contractor would be liable to pay 12% of tax towards works contract.

6. Therefore, the petitioner/association made representations on 05.07.2017 10.07.2017, 11.07.2017 and 11.09.2017 to the respondents stating that the contract works for which the agreements were executed prior to 01.07.2017 GST cannot be imposed and 2% VAT alone is applicable.

7. Alternatively the association stated that if the petitioners are compelled to pay anything over and above 2%, the respondent in addition to the value of the work done, has to remit the GST as per the notification, since the representations submitted by the petitioner/ association have not been considered and no orders were passed.

8. When the case came up for hearing on 18.09.2017, the petitioner was directed to implead the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Accordingly, an application was filed to implead and the same was ordered by order dated 20.09.2017.

9. Mr. K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate [TAXES] accepted notices for the newly impleaded respondents and it appears that he had personally spoken to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, from which, it is seen that the Government also is in the process of discussing as to how the modality has to be worked out and what is the relief petitioner/ association entitled to.

10. In any event, since the petitioner’s representations are pending, it is appropriate for the respondent to respond to the same by giving them a reply. The appropriate person who would be in a position to give reply is that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall give a reply. Because all other authorities are the department of Highways and National Highways etc., who would not be in a position to specifically address the issue pointed out by the petitioner.

11. The learned Government Advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to G.O. Ms.No.264, Finance [SALARIES] Department, dated 15.09.2017. The operative portion of the Government Order reads as follows :—

“5. Under the new tax regime, GST (comprising CGST, SGST and IGST) on works contracts for Government work was intially notified at 18 percent. This had resulted in representations from contractors of ongoing works for compensation by procuring entity for increased tax liability over and above the contracted value of work. The difficulties arising out of increased GST on works contracts for Government work was deliberated in the GST Council Meetings held on 20th August 2017 and 9th September 2017. Consequently, the GST on works contracts for Government work is being reduced to 12 percent. This move more or less balances the taxes on works contracts in the pre GST and post GST regime.

6. Pending notification of guidelines in the matter, the Government now direct that all departments and procuring entitles shall made ‘on account’ payment of bills presented by contractors, restricting the payments to the value due as per existing contract agreements. Any difference on account of final payment due based on the guidelines to be issued and the ‘on account’ payment made as above may be adjusted from out of the 5 percent amount retained with procuring entity. The payment of final bill in cases where on account payments have been made shall be made only after the notification of the guidelines.”

12. In the light of the stand taken by the respective parties there will be a direction to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to consider the representation given by the petitioner/ association and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. The authorised representative of the petitioner/ association may be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by the Commissioner. The petitioner/ association is directed to communicate the copies of the representation along with a copy of this order to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for due and effective compliance of the above directions.

Download Judgment/Order

Author Bio

More Under Goods and Services Tax



    I have executed a service providing contract for the period 01.5.19 to 30.04.2020 on 20.04.2020. with Quarterly Billing to customer. Can i raise 1 invoice for full 1 year period on 01.05.2020 and GST will be paid on 20TH MAY 2020.
    Will it be as per GST law / Compliance?

  2. S DUTTA says:

    A central govt work for supply and commissioning of 200 lines EPABX was ordered to a contractor in the year 2015 for Rs X (inclusive of taxes). Due to various external factors the work got delayed and all purchases / execution were done after July 2017 i.e. after imposition of GST. The contractor completes the work in 2019 and submits a claim of Rs (X-5%)+18% stating that the additional claim is due to the difference between VAT and GST. He didn’t speak about Service Tax on his quoted price. Also, he didn’t submit any details of GST paid by him for purchase of materials for the work.
    Please guide / clarify whether difference of 5%VAT & 18%GST i.e. 13% extra on quoted cost can be paid to the contractor logically and without any loss to state. Also, how to calculate exact amount of GST (if payable) to be reimbursed to the contractor.

  3. CA AJAP Panwar says:

    What is current gst law for govt contract excuted before 1-7-2O17 But billing and payment and work done after 1 July17
    Please give reply for MP

  4. ujwal says:

    Dear Sirs
    In a Works contract Job a clause is mentioned that no extra taxes shall be paid in case of change of Government Policies. Since one of the contarct projects were running through two tax reimes ie VAT and ST and then after July 2017 GST ,the implication of GST became a cost to the construction company because of the higher slab as compaed to the VAT &ST regieme. In this case is the contractor eleigible for claiming the GST from the clients as a Cost to the the comtract works?

  5. Nikhil Naik says:

    An assessee is facing identical situation in MP where he has not received any payment in the name of GST in old contracts. He is engaged in construction of road and bridges.
    As a last resort they filed GST 3B declaring taxable turnover upto extent of monthly ITC available and declared rest of the turnover as NIL rated supply.

    Department going by the law has raised demand for interest @ 18% and tax on supply shown as nill rated.

    Please guide for best course of action and supporting case laws if any.

  6. Parth Shah says:

    This judgement is for contract works implementing in Tamilnadu.. But what about the contract works implementing in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh??

  7. Bibhash Ranjan says:

    Can the builder charge 8% CGST & 8% AGST on Construction of residential flats under affordable housing scheme in a ongoing project which was started in the year Jan, 2015 and due to handover possession by June, 2018 in the last instalment of payment. As it is also a work contract.

  8. CA C V SURYAM says:

    The caption of the article “GST not applicable on work contracts for which agreements executed before July 1, 2017” is not correct. Earlier also many authors had posted articles in various modes with the same caption. Is it not misleading the entire industry? The judgement has not stated so as claimed in caption but it was the directions to CT department to give instructions pending finalization of modalities to find out the difference amount of tax both in pre-GST and post-GST. If you have any reservations on this comment please write to me…

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

January 2021