Bhagawan Parida vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court noted that the issue was common to a batch of writ petitions. The State Government had issued revised guidelines on December 10, 2018, to address the difficulties faced by works contractors due to the GST regime. These guidelines provided a procedure for determining the GST-inclusive work value for balance work executed after June 30, 2017, and for reimbursing contractors if the revised value exceeded the original agreement value. The Court directed the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within four weeks, ventilating their grievance. The authority was then directed to consider and dispose of the representation in light of the revised guidelines dated December 10, 2018, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by December 18, 2020. The Court also stated that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner until December 18, 2020. The judgment did not decide the ultimate entitlement but provided a procedural remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, a works contractor, challenged the action of the opposite parties (State of Odisha and Commissioner of CGST) for not reimbursing the differential tax amount arising from the transition from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Services Tax (GST) effective from July 1, 2017. The petitioner's grievance was that they were required to pay GST on works contracts entered into before the GST regime, which was not envisaged in the original agreements. The State Government had issued revised guidelines on December 10, 2018, superseding earlier guidelines from December 7, 2017, to address such issues faced by contractors. These revised guidelines provided a procedure for calculating the GST-inclusive work value for balance work executed after July 1, 2017, and for reimbursement or recovery of differential amounts.

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 for works contracts entered into prior to July 1, 2017, but executed partly or wholly thereafter? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was identical to a previously decided case (W.P.(C) No.10797 of 2020) and should be disposed of on similar terms. The core grievance was the imposition of GST on contracts where it was not originally contemplated. Revenue/State's contention: The State Government had issued revised guidelines on December 10, 2018, providing a mechanism to address the differential tax amounts. The judgment refers to these guidelines as the basis for resolving such disputes. No specific argument was recorded against the petitioner's claim, but the existence of the revised guidelines implies a procedural path for resolution.