M/S.Pramod Behera Construction vs. The Executive Engineer, R And B Division No.I Ctc

Held

The Court noted the submissions of both parties. The State counsel asserted that the differential tax amount had been fully refunded. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged a partial refund received under protest and indicated the intention to file a fresh writ petition to challenge the competent authority's order. Considering these submissions and the record, the Court found that there was nothing further to be decided in the present writ petition. The Court explicitly stated that it would be open for the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the competent authority. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. No specific finding was made on whether the reimbursement was complete or in violation of prior directions, as the matter was left open for the petitioner to pursue a fresh challenge.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the action of the opposite parties for not reimbursing the differential tax amount due to the transition from VAT to GST, effective July 1, 2017. This action was alleged to be in violation of a previous High Court direction dated February 13, 2019, in W.P.(C) No. 3070 of 2019, and guidelines issued by the Finance Department on December 10, 2018. The State counsel submitted that the differential tax amount had already been refunded to the petitioner. However, the petitioner's counsel stated that only a partial amount was refunded, which was received under protest, and that the petitioner intended to file a fresh writ petition challenging the competent authority's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the opposite parties have failed to reimburse the differential tax amount to the petitioner concerning the change of tax regime from VAT to GST, in violation of this Court's previous direction dated 13.02.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 3070 of 2019 and the Finance Department's guidelines dated 10.12.2018? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the reimbursement of the differential tax amount was not complete and that the action of the opposite parties was in contravention of the Court's prior order and departmental guidelines. The petitioner also indicated an intention to challenge the competent authority's order in a fresh writ petition. Revenue/State's Contention: The State submitted that the differential tax amount had already been refunded to the petitioner.