M/S P.M. Contractors PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court held that it was not satisfied that any new grounds had been made out that would require it to revisit its previous judgment in Harish Chandra Majhi (supra). The Court found that the judgment in Harish Chandra Majhi had dealt with a large number of grounds that were more or less similar to the points urged in the present petition. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned petition. The Court dismissed the petition for the reasons already stated in the judgment of Harish Chandra Majhi (supra). No specific operative directions were issued beyond the dismissal of the petition. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. P. M. Contractors Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court challenging actions and decisions of the Opposite Parties (State of Odisha and others) concerning the implementation of GST. The petitioner sought to declare certain actions illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of Government of India guidelines. Specifically, they prayed for restitution of GST benefits on works where estimates were prepared under the VAT law, quashing of an impugned Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018, and a declaration that imposing GST demands on pre-GST tenders/contracts is illegal. The petitioner also sought a direction to prepare a fresh Schedule of Rates (SOR) compliant with GST. The State argued that these prayers were already answered against the petitioner in a previous judgment of the same Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action and decision of the Opposite Parties regarding the sharing and bearing of GST on post-enactment GST Act, 2017, are illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of Government of India guidelines, thereby infringing the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the Opposite Parties should be directed to restitute the benefit of GST to the petitioner, along with interest, in respect of works where the estimate was prepared under the VAT law? 3. Whether the impugned part of the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018 is illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable, and should be quashed or modified? 4. Whether the action of the GST department in imposing huge demands concerning pre-GST tenders/contracts is illegal and arbitrary, and should be quashed? 5. Whether the Opposite Party should be directed to prepare a fresh Schedule of Rates (SOR) making it GST compliant? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned notification of the Government of Orissa was inconsistent with the Government of India notification. They also raised a point about embedded taxes subsumed in the value not being excluded while arriving at the base price for GST levy. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that all the prayers in the present petition had been answered against the petitioner by a previous judgment of the Court in W.P.(C) No.14924 of 2020 (Harish Chandra Majhi and State of Orissa and others).