Dhabaleswar Pattanaik vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within four weeks, outlining their grievances. The authority was then directed to consider and dispose of this representation in light of the revised guidelines dated December 10, 2018, issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Odisha. This consideration and disposal were to be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably by October 21, 2020. The Court also stated that if the petitioner remained aggrieved by the authority's decision, they would be at liberty to challenge it. No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until October 21, 2020. The Court did not decide the substantive claim for reimbursement but provided a procedural path for its resolution based on the existing guidelines.

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 originally envisaged. The State had issued revised guidelines on December 10, 2018, superseding earlier guidelines from December 7, 2017, to address difficulties faced by contractors regarding 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, on tenders invited before 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 partly or wholly thereafter? The petitioner argued that the introduction of GST resulted in an additional tax burden not contemplated at the time of entering into agreements, necessitating reimbursement. The State, while not disputing the petitioner's position, relied on the revised guidelines issued by the Finance Department on December 10, 2018, which provided a framework for calculating and potentially reimbursing the differential tax amount for such works contracts. The Court was to consider the applicability and implementation of these revised guidelines.