Ojesh Pati vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court held that the grounds urged in the present petition were largely similar to those dealt with in the previous judgment of Harish Chandra Majhi (supra). The Court was not satisfied that any new grounds were made out that would necessitate revisiting its prior decision. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned petition. The reasoning was that the issues raised by the petitioner had already been adjudicated upon and decided by the Court in the earlier writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that a subsequent writ petition raising identical issues already decided by a coordinate bench of the same High Court is not maintainable and will be dismissed on the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata, without re-examining the merits. The petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Ojesh Pati, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa challenging actions and decisions of the Opposite Parties (State of Odisha and others). The petitioner sought to declare certain actions illegal and unconstitutional, specifically concerning the sharing and bearing of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on post-enactment contracts where estimates were prepared under the erstwhile VAT law. The petitioner also prayed for restitution of GST benefits with interest and for quashing of an Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018 and a letter under Annexure-2. The petitioner later withdrew the challenge to the letter under Annexure-2. The State contended that all remaining prayers were already decided against the petitioner in a previous judgment of the same High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action and decision of the Opposite Parties regarding the sharing and bearing of GST on contracts estimated under VAT law is illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of the petitioner's legal rights, 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 for contracts where estimates were prepared under the VAT law? 3. Whether the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018 should be declared illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable and quashed? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned notification was inconsistent with the Government of India notification and that embedded taxes subsumed in the base price were not excluded for GST levy. The petitioner sought to distinguish the present case from a previous judgment by arguing that the specific points raised were not considered therein. Revenue's Arguments: The State contended that all the prayers in the present petition had already been answered against the petitioner by this Court's judgment dated 7th June, 2021, in W.P.(C) No.14924 of 2020 (Harish Chandra Majhi and State of Orissa and others).