M/S.Rout Infrastructure PVT.LTD. vs. The Executive Engineer,Mahanadi South Division

Held

The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, directed the sole opposite party (Executive Engineer, Mahanadi South Division, Cuttack) to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated December 26, 2018. This decision was to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the Court's order. The authority was instructed to consider the revised guidelines as contained in the Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 7, 2017, and decide in accordance with law. The petitioner was also directed to supply a copy of their representation along with the certified copy of the order to expedite the disposal. The Court also stated that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner until the representation was decided. If the petitioner remained aggrieved by the authority's decision, they would be at liberty to challenge it. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court's direction was to decide the pending representation.

Facts

The petitioner, aggrieved by the non-reimbursement of differential tax amounts arising from the transition from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Services Tax (GST) effective July 1, 2017, submitted a representation on December 26, 2018, to the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi South Division, Cuttack. This representation relied on a Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 7, 2017. Despite the representation, no decision had been taken by the sole opposite party. The petitioner sought a direction for the authority to decide on the representation within a specified timeframe.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the sole opposite party to decide on the petitioner's representation dated December 26, 2018, concerning the non-reimbursement of differential tax amounts due to the VAT to GST transition, within a specific period? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their representation, highlighting grievances related to the tax regime change and supported by the Government of Odisha's Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 7, 2017, had not been decided by the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi South Division, Cuttack. They sought a judicial directive for a timely decision. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments or contentions from the revenue or State. The focus was on the petitioner's prayer for a direction to decide the pending representation.