Surendra Kumar Barik vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court acknowledged that the writ petition was identical to W.P.(C) No.5933 of 2020, which had been disposed of on February 18, 2020. The State did not dispute this. The Court noted the revised guidelines issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, on December 10, 2018, which provided a procedure for determining the GST-inclusive work value for balance work on contracts entered into before July 1, 2017, but executed thereafter. The Court directed the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to the appropriate authority within four weeks, ventilating their grievance. The authority was directed to consider and dispose of this representation in light of the revised guidelines dated December 10, 2018, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by November 30, 2020. The Court also stated that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the authority's decision, they could challenge it. No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until October 21, 2020.

Facts

The petitioner, a works contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the State's action of 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 contracts entered into before the GST regime, which was not originally envisaged. The State submitted revised guidelines dated December 10, 2018, issued by the Finance Department, superseding earlier guidelines from December 7, 2017. These revised guidelines provided a procedure for determining the GST-inclusive work value for balance work on contracts tendered before July 1, 2017, but executed partly or wholly after that date.

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 for works contracts entered into prior to July 1, 2017, but executed thereafter? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the introduction of GST necessitated paying tax that was not contemplated when the agreements were made, thus entitling them to reimbursement of the differential tax amount. They relied on the fact that the issue was identical to other writ petitions disposed of previously. Revenue/State's argument: The State did not dispute the petitioner's position regarding the similarity to other cases. They presented revised guidelines issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, dated December 10, 2018, which provided a framework for addressing such claims.