M/S. Biraja Construction vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within four weeks, ventilating their grievance. The authority is directed to consider and dispose of this representation in light of the revised guidelines issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, vide Office Memorandum No. FIN-CTI-TAX-0045-2017/38535/F dated December 10, 2018. The authority is to dispose of the representation expeditiously, preferably within three months. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the authority, they are at liberty to challenge it. No coercive action is to be taken against the petitioner for a period of three months. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, a works contractor, challenged the action of the opposite parties 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 was that they were required to pay GST on contracts entered into before the GST regime, which was not originally envisaged. The State-opposite parties accepted notice. The petitioner requested the writ petition be disposed of in terms of a previous order in an identical case. The Court noted that the Government had issued revised guidelines dated December 10, 2018, superseding earlier guidelines, to address difficulties faced by contractors regarding works contracts under GST.

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 for works contracts entered into prior to July 1, 2017, but executed partly or wholly after that date? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are facing difficulties due to the introduction of GST, as they are required to pay tax that was not contemplated when the agreements were made. They seek reimbursement for the additional tax burden incurred. Revenue/State's Contention: The State-opposite parties did not dispute the petitioner's position and accepted notice. The judgment indicates that the State has issued revised guidelines to address such issues, suggesting an acknowledgment of the problem.