Narottam Satapathy vs. The Principal Secretary Finance Dept.
Held
The Court noted that the issue involved had been decided in several earlier cases. The Court directed the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within four weeks, detailing their grievance. The authority was then directed to consider and dispose of this representation expeditiously, preferably within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of the order, in light of the revised guidelines dated December 10, 2018, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha. The petitioner was informed that if they were aggrieved by the authority's decision, they could challenge it. No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until March 31, 2020. The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claim but provided a procedural path for its resolution.
Facts
The petitioner, a works contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the opposite parties (State) in not reimbursing the differential tax amount arising from the transition from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Services Tax (GST) effective from July 1, 2017. The petitioner's grievance was that the GST liability was not envisaged when the agreements were entered into. The State submitted that revised guidelines were issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Odisha on December 10, 2018, superseding earlier guidelines from December 7, 2017, to address issues related to works contracts under GST.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the differential tax amount due to the change in tax regime from VAT to GST for works contracts entered into prior to July 1, 2017, but executed partly or wholly thereafter? The petitioner argued that the introduction of GST resulted in an additional tax burden not anticipated at the time of entering into agreements. The State contended that the Government had issued revised guidelines on December 10, 2018, which provided a procedure for determining the payable amount to works contractors in such scenarios. These guidelines aimed to address the claims of contractors for additional amounts towards GST on works tendered before July 1, 2017, but executed after that date. The State relied on the Office Memorandum No. FIN-CTI-TAX-0045-2017/38535/F dated 10.12.2018.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
05.12.2019
Heard Mr. A. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.S. Sahoo, 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
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.