M/S. S.N. Kanungo Infrastucture vs. The Senior Manager ( Civil)

Held

The Court held that it was appropriate to direct the sole opposite party to decide the petitioner's representation dated May 27, 2019. The decision was to be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that this direction was issued without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim. The opposite party was to consider the revised guidelines as contained in the Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum No. FIN-CTI-TAX-0045-2017/38535/F dated 10.12.2018, and decide the matter 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 noted that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the authority, they would be at liberty to challenge it. Furthermore, no coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until the representation was disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities should decide pending representations within a reasonable time, especially when supported by government guidelines, and High Courts can direct such action without adjudicating the underlying claim.

Facts

The petitioner's grievance concerns 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. The petitioner submitted a representation on May 27, 2019, to the Senior Manager (Civil), Kanas Canal Group of Project, Odisha Construction Corporation Limited, relying on a Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 10, 2018. However, no decision had been taken on this representation. The petitioner sought a direction for the opposite party to decide the representation within a specified timeframe. The Court, without commenting on the merits, directed the opposite party to decide the representation within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order, considering the revised guidelines in the aforementioned Office Memorandum. The petitioner was also instructed to provide a copy of their representation along with the certified order to expedite the process. No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until the representation was decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the opposite party to decide the petitioner's representation regarding the non-reimbursement of differential tax amounts arising from the transition to GST, considering the Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 10, 2018? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of administrative fairness and the applicability of the Office Memorandum). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their representation, submitted on May 27, 2019, highlighting grievances related to the differential tax amount due to the VAT to GST transition, had not been decided by the sole opposite party. They relied on the Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 10, 2018, and sought a direction for a decision within a specific time. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state. The opposite party is the Senior Manager (Civil), Kanas Canal Group of Project, Odisha Construction Corporation Limited.