M/S B.M.P. And Sons Constructions PVT.LTD. vs. State Of Orissa

Held

The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, directed opposite party No.3 to decide on the petitioner's representation dated December 11, 2019, within four weeks of the certified copy of the order being produced. This decision is to be made in accordance with law, taking into account the revised guidelines in the Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 10, 2018. The petitioner was also instructed to provide a copy of their representation along with the certified copy of the order to expedite the process. The Court further stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the authority's decision, they are free to challenge it. No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner by opposite parties Nos.1 to 4 until the representation was disposed of. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

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 11, 2019, to the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Rourkela (opposite party No.3). However, no action had been taken on this representation by the time the writ petition was filed. The petitioner relied on a Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 10, 2018, for consideration of their claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the opposite party No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated December 11, 2019, concerning the non-reimbursement of differential tax amounts due to the GST transition, in light of the Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 10, 2018? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their representation, highlighting grievances related to the differential tax amount arising from the VAT to GST transition, had not been acted upon. They sought a direction to opposite party No.3 to consider this representation within a specific timeframe, referencing the aforementioned Office Memorandum and a previous High Court order in a similar case (W.P.(C) No.22326 of 2019). Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state authorities.