Page 102 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

4 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
the work of railway at the rate of 12%, which was not and could not have been
envisaged while the petitioner offered his rate.
4. The North Central Railway Administration has filed a counter affi-
davit. Paragraph - 19 of the said affidavit is relevant and is quoted hereinbelow :-
“That, the contents of the para No. 10 of the writ petition need no com-
ments as it’s a comment prescribed under the Act. Moreover, it requires
consideration. It is pertinent to point out here that the present GST Act en-
acted on 12-4-2017 and came into force on 1-7-2017 and subsequently the Let-
ter of Acceptance (LOA) was issued on 28-7-2017 in which it is clearly men-
tioned that the “Supplier of Goods and/or Services would be a subject to GST Act
and Rules as applicable from time to time” & Contract Agreement was executed
on 13-11-2017. So that nothing is required to reply more in this regards.
Moreover it’s policy matter of the Central Government.”
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case as stated
above, there cannot be any manner of doubt whatsoever that the writ petitioner
would be subject to tax as per the GST Act, which was enacted on 12th April,
2017. The petitioner has also received payment for work done. The prayer in the
writ petition, therefore, cannot be considered by this Court. The writ petition is
liable to be dismissed and stands accordingly, dismissed.

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 4 (Chhattisgarh)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR
P. Sam Koshy, J.
DADHICHI IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD.
Versus
CHHATTISGARH GST

WPT No. 42 of 2020, decided on 25-2-2020
Investigations under GST - Bar under Section 6(2)(b) of Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Applicability - Initial investigations conducted by
State GST Authorities culminating in issuance of SCN on using fake and bo-
gus invoices for availing ineligible ITC - Subsequent investigations based on a
secret intelligence being undertaken by DG, Goods and Services Tax Intelli-
gence, prima facie revealing that magnitude of offence was far more grave and
serious - Not only petitioner had availed ineligible ITC but he had been mak-
ing false and bogus transaction to pass on ineligible credit - Amount of eva-
sion has gone up multifold due to detailed investigations by aforesaid agency -
In view of this, bar as ibid not applicable because there is a clear distinction
between two investigations - Case laws relied by petitioner distinguishable on
facts - Petition not sustainable - Section 6(2)(b) of Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [paras 13, 14, 15]
Petition rejected

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  166