^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

MOOL CHAND JAIN PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Madhya Pradesh High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

VIVEK RUSIA
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

Pet. Counsel

Ashutosh Ajay Awasthi

Nikhil Rai

Res. Counsel

Vivek Khedkar

Petitioner / Applicant	MOOL CHAND JAIN PVT LTD
Respondent	THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Court	Madhya Pradesh High Court
State	Madhya Pradesh
Date	Aug 1, 2024
Order No.	Writ Petition No. 27017 of 2023
Citation	2024(8) TAXREPLY 10407
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 54

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER PER: JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA Petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking direction from the respondents to consider his representation submitted on September 11, 2023, in relation to refund of GST. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are as follows: (i) The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of construction. The petitioner entered into a work contract with the Public Works Department on June 10, 2015. At that time, Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and Finance Act, 1994, were in force. The Central Government introduced GST w.e.f. 1.7.2017. According to the petitioner, from 2017–18 until the completion of work in 2020–21, the respondents' department wrongly deducted CGST and SGST from running bills, which is evident from the tax invoice (Annexure P/3). petitioner is not liable to pay GST in view of terms and conditions of the works contract which was entered into prior to 1.7.2017. petitioner preferred a representation to the ....