Kartik Chandra Swain vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court held that the grounds urged in the present petition were substantially similar to those dealt with in the previous judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14924 of 2020 (Harish Chandra Majhi and State of Orissa and others). The Court was not satisfied that any new grounds had been made out that would necessitate revisiting its prior decision. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned petition. The reasoning was based on the principle that once a matter has been decided by a coordinate bench of the same High Court, and no new material or distinguishing arguments are presented, the subsequent petition would likely follow the precedent. The Court did not find any merit in the petitioner's attempt to distinguish the earlier judgment. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for the reasons already stated in the Harish Chandra Majhi judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, Kartik Chandra Swain, filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court challenging actions and decisions of the State of Odisha and others concerning the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The petitioner sought to declare the actions illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of Government of India guidelines on GST implementation, particularly regarding taxes shared and borne by him on post-enactment GST. He also sought restitution of GST benefits with interest for works where estimates were prepared under the VAT law, and to quash an impugned part of an Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018. The petitioner further challenged the imposition of GST demands on pre-GST tenders/contracts and requested a fresh GST-compliant Schedule of Rates (SOR). The State pointed out that these prayers were addressed 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 actions and decisions of the Opposite Parties regarding GST implementation, specifically concerning taxes shared and borne by the petitioner on post-enactment GST, 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 with interest for works estimated under the VAT law, and whether the impugned part of the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018 is illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable? 3. Whether the imposition of GST demands on pre-GST tenders/contracts is illegal and arbitrary, and whether a fresh GST-compliant Schedule of Rates (SOR) should be prepared? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the points raised in the present petition were not considered in the previous judgment and sought to distinguish it by highlighting inconsistencies between the Government of India notification and the impugned notification of the Government of Orissa. The petitioner also raised a point about embedded taxes subsumed in the base price not being excluded for GST levy. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State contended that all prayers in the present petition had been answered against the petitioner by the High Court's judgment dated 7th June, 2021, in W.P.(C) No.14924 of 2020 (Harish Chandra Majhi and State of Orissa and others).