M/S. Mahavir Infra Developers PVT.LTD vs. The Executive Engineer
Held
The Court noted that the issue had been decided in several previous cases. The State's revised guidelines dated December 10, 2018, provided a framework for addressing the petitioner's grievance. The Court directed the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to the appropriate authority within four weeks, ventilating their grievance. The authority was then directed to consider and dispose of this representation in light of the revised guidelines expeditiously, preferably by February 29, 2020. The Court also stated that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner until February 29, 2020. If the petitioner remained aggrieved by the authority's decision, they would be at liberty to challenge it further. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, a contractor, challenged the State's action of not reimbursing the differential tax amount arising from the transition from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Services Tax (GST) effective July 1, 2017. The petitioner's grievance was that they were required to pay GST on contracts entered into before the GST regime, which was not originally envisaged. The State submitted revised guidelines issued by the Finance Department on December 10, 2018, which superseded earlier guidelines from December 7, 2017. These revised guidelines addressed the issue of works contracts executed partly or wholly after July 1, 2017, for tenders invited before that date.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the differential tax amount arising from the change in tax regime from VAT to GST for works contracts entered into prior to July 1, 2017, but executed thereafter? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are required to pay GST on contracts that were agreed upon under the previous VAT regime, leading to an unforeseen tax burden. They sought reimbursement of this differential tax amount. Revenue/State's contention: The State submitted revised guidelines dated December 10, 2018, which provided a procedure for determining the payable amount to works contractors for balance work executed after the GST implementation. These guidelines aimed to address the claims for additional amounts towards GST.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
18.12.2019
Heard Ms. K.B. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.
By way of this writ petition, in substance, petitioner has challenged the action of the opposite parties in not reimbursing 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. 3. Since the issue involved in this case has already been decided by us earlier in a number of cases, no purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed earlier in similar matters.
Batch of writ petitions were being filed on this issue. The main issue involved in such matters is that the difficulty faced by the contractors due to change in the regime regarding works contract under GST. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the introduction of the GST, petitioner is required to pay tax which was not envisaged while entering into the agreement.
Learned Addl. Governm
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.