M/S.Rout Infrastructure PVT.LTD. vs. The Executive Engineer,Nimapara

Held

The Court directed the sole opposite party to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated December 26, 2018, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. This decision is to be made keeping in mind the revised guidelines in the Government of Odisha, Finance Department's Office Memorandum No. FIN-CTI-TAX-0045-2017/36116/F dated December 7, 2017, and in accordance with the law. The petitioner was also instructed to supply a copy of their representation along with the certified copy of the order to expedite the disposal. The Court explicitly stated that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner until the representation is decided. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the authority's decision, they are free to challenge it.

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 from July 1, 2017, submitted a representation on December 26, 2018, to the Executive Engineer, Nimapara Irrigation Division. This representation relied on the Government of Odisha, Finance Department's Office Memorandum No. FIN-CTI-TAX-0045-2017/36116/F dated December 7, 2017. Despite the representation, no decision had been taken by the authority. The petitioner sought a direction for the authority to decide on the representation within a specified timeframe.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a direction to the sole opposite party (Executive Engineer, Nimapara Irrigation Division) 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 relying on a specific Government of Odisha Finance Department Office Memorandum, remained undecided. They sought a judicial directive for a timely decision. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the revenue or State. The Court proceeded based on the petitioner's submissions and the existing administrative memorandum.