Pratap Chandra Parida vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court found that the judgment delivered in Harish Chandra Majhi (supra) had dealt with a large number of grounds that were more or less similar to the points urged in the present petition. The Court was not satisfied that any new grounds had been made out that would require it to revisit its earlier decision. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the present petition and dismissed it for the reasons already stated in the Harish Chandra Majhi judgment. No specific operative directions were issued, other than the dismissal of the petition. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as it found the matter to be covered by precedent.

Facts

The petitioner, Pratap Chandra Parida, filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court seeking directions to declare the actions/inactions of the Opposite Parties (State of Odisha and others) as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner prayed for restitution of GST benefits along with interest for work where estimates were prepared under the VAT Law. Additionally, the petitioner sought to declare an Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable, and requested directions for the Opposite Parties to prepare a fresh schedule of rates and guidelines compliant with GST. The State argued that these prayers were already answered against the petitioner in a previous judgment of the High Court in W.P.(C) No.14924 of 2020 (Harish Chandra Majhi and State of Orissa and others).

Key Issues

1. Whether the action/inaction of the Opposite Parties regarding the restitution of GST benefits with interest for work estimated under VAT Law is arbitrary and illegal, and if the Opposite Parties should be directed to provide such restitution (referring to the petitioner's prayer i). 2. Whether the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018 should be declared illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable and quashed (referring to the petitioner's prayer ii). 3. Whether the Opposite Parties should be directed to prepare a fresh schedule of rates and guidelines making it GST compliant (referring to the petitioner's prayer iii). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to distinguish the previous judgment in Harish Chandra Majhi, arguing that the specific points raised in the present petition were not considered. The petitioner presented a chart highlighting inconsistencies between a Government of India notification and the impugned notification of the Government of Orissa. A specific point raised was that embedded taxes, subsumed in the value, were not excluded when arriving at the base price for GST levy. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Additional Government Advocate for the State contended that all the prayers in the present petition had been addressed and answered against the petitioner in the High Court's prior judgment in W.P.(C) No.14924 of 2020.