Sundar Pravat Das vs. State Of Odisha
Facts
The Petitioner, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Opposite Parties (State authorities) for not reimbursing the differential tax amount. This differential arose due to the transition from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Services Tax (GST) effective from July 1, 2017. The Petitioner's grievance is that the GST regime requires them to pay tax that was not anticipated when the agreement was initially made. The present petition is stated to be identical to a previously filed writ petition, W.P.(C) No.5933 of 2020.
Held
The Court noted that the Petitioner's writ petition was identical to W.P.(C) No.5933 of 2020. The Petitioner was directed to make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within four weeks, detailing their grievance. The authority is to consider and dispose of this representation in light of the revised guidelines dated December 10, 2018, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by April 18, 2021. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the authority's decision, they are at liberty to challenge it. No coercive action is to be taken against the Petitioner until April 18, 2021. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of differential tax amounts arising from the change in tax regime from VAT to GST, as per Section 14 of the Odisha Finance Department's revised guidelines dated December 10, 2018. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the present writ petition is identical to W.P.(C) No.5933 of 2020 and should be disposed of in terms of the order passed in that case. The core grievance is the financial burden incurred due to the GST regime, which was not contemplated at the time of entering into the agreement. Revenue/State's Contention: The learned Additional Government Advocate for the State did not dispute the Petitioner's submission regarding the similarity of the case to W.P.(C) No.5933 of 2020 and accepted notice for the Opposite Parties.
Sections Cited
Section 14
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
03.03.2021
Heard Mr. T.Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D.Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.
Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State accepts notice for Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3. 3. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present writ petition being identical to W.P.(C) No.5933 of 2020, the same may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 18th February, 2020, passed in W.P.(C) No.5933 of 2020. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 does not dispute the said position.
By way of this writ petition, Petitioner has challenged the action of the Opposite Parties in not reimbursing the differential tax amount arising out of change in tax regime from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Service Tax (GST) with effect from 1st July, 2017. 6. Batch of writ petitions are being filed on this issue. The main issue involved in such matters is that the difficulty faced by the contractors due to change in the regime regarding works contract W.P.(C) No.7952 of
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.