Jayaram Pujahari vs. State Of Odisha
Facts
The petitioner, Jayram Pujahari, filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court seeking a direction for the opposite parties to pay differential GST on a work contract for rural roads under the PMGSY (ADB Rural Connectivity Investment Programme). The work was awarded through Agreement No. ADB 09 F2 of 2017-18. The petitioner had made a representation (Annexure-4 series) to opposite party no.4, the Chief Engineer, PMGSY, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, requesting consideration of the differential tax calculated under Annexure-3, along with a letter dated 06.06.2018 and recommendations from the competent authority. The petitioner requested that this representation be disposed of within a stipulated time.
Held
The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition by directing opposite party no.4, the Chief Engineer, PMGSY, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, to consider the representation filed by the petitioner (Annexure-4 series). This consideration must be done taking into account the letter dated 06.06.2018 and the recommendation made by the competent authority vide Annexure-3. The opposite party is to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The Court did not decide on the actual entitlement to the differential GST amount, only on the procedural step of considering the representation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct the opposite parties to make payment of differential GST calculated under Annexure-3 for the specified work, considering the petitioner's representation and supporting documents (letter dated 06.06.2018 and competent authority's recommendation). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a direction should be issued to the opposite parties to dispose of their representation (Annexure-4 series) within a stipulated time, taking into account the differential GST calculation (Annexure-3), the letter dated 06.06.2018, and the recommendations of the competent authority. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State had no objection to the petitioner's prayer for a direction to dispose of the representation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 26.04.2022 Order No.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to make payment of differential tax of GST calculated under Annexure-3 for the work “Construction and maintenance for five years of rural roads PMGSY (ADB Rural Connectivity Investment Programme) for package no. OR-28- ADB-88/Batch-I, RCIP-2/Tr-1 vide Agreement No. ADB 09 F2 of 2017-18 under Annexure-1 within a stipulated time.
In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already made representation before opposite party no.4-Chief Engineer, PMGSY, Bhubaneswar, Odisha vide Annexure-4 series, and the same may be directed to be disposed of taking into consideration the letter dated 06.06.2018 and also recommendation made
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.