Pratap Chandra Parida vs. State Of Odisha
Held
The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, directed the opposite party No. 3 (Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division-II, Nayagarh) to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated December 28, 2019. 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 per the Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 10, 2018, and decide in accordance with the law. The petitioner was also directed to provide a copy of their representation along with the certified copy of the order to expedite the process. The Court also stipulated that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner until the representation is decided. If the petitioner remains aggrieved by the authority's 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 28, 2019, to the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division-II, Nayagarh (opposite party No. 3), referencing a Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 10, 2018. As no decision had been taken on this representation, the petitioner sought a direction from the High Court for the opposite party No. 3 to decide it within a specified timeframe.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct the opposite party No. 3 to decide the petitioner's representation dated December 28, 2019, concerning the non-reimbursement of differential tax amounts due to the VAT to GST transition. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that despite submitting a representation on the issue, no decision had been taken by the authority. They relied on the Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 10, 2018, and 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.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
03.02.2020
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner in this case relates to non-reimbursement of the differential tax amount arising out of change in tax regime from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Service Tax (GST) with effect from 01.07.2017. He further submits that though highlighting all his grievances, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 28.12.2019 before the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division-II, Nayagarh (opposite party No.3) relying on Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum No. FIN-CTI- TAX-0045-2017/38535/F Dated 10.12.2018, however, till date, no decision has been taken on such representation. In such background, he prays that a direction be issued to opposite party No.3 to take a decision on the above mentioned representation under Annexure-1 series within a specific time period.
Considering such submissions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, this Court directs the opposite party No.3 to take a decision on the representation dated 28.12.2019 of the petitioner
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.