Sri Kaliash Chandra Bisoyi vs. Odisha State Rural Road Agency Cum Rdd

Held

The Court acknowledged the revised guidelines issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, on December 10, 2018, which provided a mechanism for addressing the claims of works contractors for additional GST amounts. The Court directed the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within four weeks, ventilating their grievance. The authority was instructed to consider and dispose of this representation in light of the aforementioned revised guidelines expeditiously, preferably by March 31, 2019. The Court also stated that if the petitioner remained aggrieved by the authority's decision, they would be at liberty to challenge it. No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until March 31, 2019. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the resolution was based on the procedural direction to approach the authority under the new guidelines.

Facts

The petitioner, a works contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the opposite parties' action of not reimbursing the differential tax amount arising from the transition from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Services Tax (GST) effective July 1, 2017. The petitioner's grievance was that the GST liability was not anticipated when entering into agreements for works contracts. The State submitted revised guidelines issued by the Government of Odisha, Finance Department, on December 10, 2018, which superseded earlier guidelines from December 7, 2017. These revised guidelines addressed the claims of contractors for additional amounts towards GST on works tendered before July 1, 2017, but executed partly or wholly thereafter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the differential tax amount due to the change in tax regime from VAT to GST for works contracts entered into prior to July 1, 2017, but executed thereafter? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the introduction of GST resulted in a tax liability that was not envisaged at the time of entering into the agreements, thus requiring reimbursement of the differential tax amount. Revenue/State's Argument: The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Government had issued revised guidelines on December 10, 2018, superseding the previous ones, to address such issues concerning works contracts under GST. These guidelines provided a procedure for determining and reimbursing the GST-inclusive work value for the balance work executed after the GST implementation.