Dhabaleswar Pattnaik vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's case was identical to W.P.(C) No.5933 of 2020, and the State did not dispute this. The Court referred to the revised guidelines issued by the Government of Odisha, Finance Department, on December 10, 2018, which provided a detailed procedure for determining the GST-inclusive work value for balance work executed after June 30, 2017, for contracts tendered before July 1, 2017. These guidelines stipulated that if the revised GST-inclusive work value for the balance work exceeded the original agreement work value, the works contractor was to be reimbursed for the excess amount. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within four weeks. The authority was directed to consider and dispose of the representation in light of the aforesaid revised guidelines dated December 10, 2018, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by October 21, 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 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 envisaged at the time of agreement. The State had issued revised guidelines on December 10, 2018, superseding earlier guidelines from December 7, 2017, to address such issues concerning works contracts under GST. These revised guidelines provided a procedure for determining the GST-inclusive work value for balance work executed after July 1, 2017, and stipulated reimbursement if the revised value exceeded the original agreement value.

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 partly or wholly thereafter? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the present writ petition is identical to W.P.(C) No.5933 of 2020 and should be disposed of in terms of the order passed in that case. The core grievance is the non-reimbursement of GST on works contracts executed after the GST implementation, where tenders were invited prior to it. State's contention: The State's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the similarity to the earlier writ petition. The State had issued revised guidelines on December 10, 2018, to address the issue of differential tax amounts for works contracts under GST.