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

Held

The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, directed the sole opposite party (Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Budha Bihar, Bhadrak) to decide the petitioner's representation dated December 26, 2018. This decision is to be made within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the Court's order. The authority is to consider the revised guidelines as contained in the Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 10, 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 stated that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner until the representation is decided. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision, they are free to challenge it.

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 December 26, 2018, to the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Budha Bihar, Bhadrak, 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.

Key Issues

1. Whether a direction should be issued to the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Budha Bihar, Bhadrak, to decide the petitioner's representation dated December 26, 2018, concerning the non-reimbursement of differential GST amounts. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that despite submitting a representation on December 26, 2018, supported by a Government of Odisha Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 10, 2018, no decision had been taken by the sole opposite party. Therefore, a direction was sought to expedite the decision-making process within a specific time. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the revenue or state. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's submissions and the existing government memorandum.