Case Title: M/s Devendra Kumar Singh Contractor v. Union of India and 2 others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Petition Number: Writ Tax No. 1606 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 15.04.2025
Relevant Sections: Section 73(9), Section 9 CGST Act, 2017
Category of Dispute: Tax Liability – Responsibility to Discharge GST
Facts of the Case (Paras 1–3)
-
The petitioner, a contractor, was served a show cause notice under Section 73 for non-payment of GST.
-
He argued that under the work order with Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (Respondent No.3), the liability to pay GST was on the company, not him (Para 2).
-
A demand of ₹33,17,688/- was raised under Section 73(9) despite this contention (Para 1).
-
The petitioner relied on Section 9 (Reverse Charge Mechanism), claiming that GST should be demanded from the recipient company (Para 3).
Question in Consideration
-
Whether the petitioner (supplier) can escape GST liability on the basis of a private contractual agreement shifting tax liability to the recipient company.
-
Whether liability under Section 9 can be claimed without a specific RCM notification covering the transaction.
Observation of the Court (Paras 4–6)
-
The Standing Counsel argued that no notification under Section 9 applied to the present case, hence RCM could not be invoked (Para 4).
-
The Court noted that the petitioner failed to show any valid RCM notification applicable to the contract (Para 6).
-
It held that while the contractual clause may bind the parties inter se, as far as the State is concerned, the statutory liability rests with the supplier (petitioner) (Para 6).
Judgment of the Court (Para 7)
-
The writ petition was dismissed.
-
The petitioner is liable to discharge GST dues as the supplier; any contractual indemnity against Respondent No.3 is enforceable only privately, not against the State.
Between Fine Lines
This case establishes that:
-
GST liability under law cannot be shifted by private agreement.
-
Reverse Charge is valid only if notified by the Government.
-
Suppliers remain primarily liable under Section 9 unless RCM applies.
-
Contractual terms are enforceable only between contracting parties, not against tax authorities.
-
The writ petition was rightly dismissed, confirming statutory primacy over private arrangements.
Summary of Referred Cases
(No external cases were cited in this judgment, hence table is not applicable.)
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
