Susanta Kumar Samantaray vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, directed the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Puri (opposite party No.3), to decide the petitioner's representation dated December 30, 2019, within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. This decision is to be made keeping in mind the revised guidelines in the Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum No. FIN-CTI-TAX-0045-2017/38535/F dated December 10, 2018, and in accordance with the 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 further stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the authority's decision, they are free to challenge it. No coercive action is to be taken against the petitioner until the representation is decided. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

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 July 1, 2017. The petitioner submitted a representation on December 30, 2019, to the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Puri, referencing 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 authority to decide the representation within a specified timeframe.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Puri, to decide the petitioner's representation dated December 30, 2019, concerning the non-reimbursement of differential tax amounts arising from the VAT to GST transition, within a specific period? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that despite submitting a representation on December 30, 2019, relying on the Government of Odisha, Finance Department Office Memorandum dated December 10, 2018, no decision had been taken. They prayed for a direction to the opposite party No.3 (Executive Engineer) to decide the representation within a specific time. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the revenue or State. The Court considered the petitioner's submissions.