Sundar Pravat Das vs. State Of Odisha
Facts
The Petitioner, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the State's action of not reimbursing the differential tax amount. This arose due to the transition from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Services Tax (GST) effective from July 1, 2017. The Petitioner contended that the introduction of GST imposed tax liabilities not anticipated when agreements were entered into. The Petitioner's counsel noted that this writ petition was identical to a previously decided case, W.P.(C) No.5933 of 2020, and requested a similar disposal. The State's counsel did not dispute this position.
Held
The Court acknowledged that the issue of difficulties faced by contractors due to the change in tax regime from VAT to GST for works contracts was a recurring one. Following the precedent set in W.P.(C) No.5933 of 2020, the Court directed the Petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to the appropriate authority within four weeks, detailing their grievances. The authority was instructed to consider and dispose of this representation expeditiously, preferably by April 18, 2021, in light of the revised guidelines dated December 10, 2018, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha. The Petitioner was granted the liberty to challenge the authority's decision if aggrieved. No coercive action was to be taken against the Petitioner until April 18, 2021. The Court did not explicitly decide the entitlement to reimbursement but provided a procedural path for resolution.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the differential tax amount arising from the change in tax regime from VAT to GST, considering the Petitioner's grievance that the GST liability was not envisaged at the time of entering into agreements for works contracts? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the change in tax regime to GST resulted in an unforeseen tax burden on works contracts, for which reimbursement was due. They relied on the principle that the writ petition was identical to W.P.(C) No.5933 of 2020 and sought disposal in terms of that order. Revenue/State's contention: The State's counsel did not dispute the Petitioner's assertion regarding the similarity to the prior writ petition and accepted notice.
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. W.P.(C) No.7953 of 2021
2
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 regi
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.