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 arising from the transition from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Services Tax (GST) effective July 1, 2017. The Petitioner's grievance is that the introduction of GST imposed a tax liability not anticipated when the agreements were entered into. This writ petition was stated to be identical to a previously filed writ petition, W.P.(C) No.3465 of 2021, which was disposed of on February 1, 2021. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the State did not dispute this position.

Held

The Court noted that the present writ petition was identical to W.P.(C) No.3465 of 2021. Consequently, the Court directed the Petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within two weeks, detailing their grievance. The appropriate authority was instructed 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. This disposal was to be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably by April 8, 2021. The Court also stated that if the Petitioner remained aggrieved by the authority's decision, they would be at liberty to challenge it. Furthermore, no coercive action was to be taken against the Petitioner until April 8, 2021. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the differential tax amount due to the change in tax regime from VAT to GST on works contracts entered into prior to the GST implementation, considering the Petitioner's contention that this tax liability was not envisaged at the time of agreement. The Petitioner argued that the change in tax regime to GST resulted in an unforeseen tax burden on works contracts, for which reimbursement should be provided. The Petitioner relied on the fact that the present writ petition is identical to W.P.(C) No.3465 of 2021, implying a precedent for relief. The State-Opposite Parties, through the learned Additional Government Advocate, did not dispute the Petitioner's submission regarding the similarity to the prior writ petition.