M/S. Trinath Construction(Proprietorship) vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court noted the submissions of both parties. The State counsel asserted that the differential tax amount had been refunded. The petitioner's counsel clarified that a partial refund was received under protest and that the petitioner intended to file a fresh writ petition challenging the order of the competent authority. Considering these submissions and the record, the Court found that nothing remained 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. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with these observations, leaving the petitioner free to pursue further legal recourse regarding the specific order of the competent authority.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the action of the opposite parties (State) for not reimbursing the differential tax amount arising from the transition from VAT to GST, effective July 1, 2017. The petitioner contended this action violated a previous High Court direction dated January 25, 2019, in another writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 22313 of 2018) 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 clarified that only a partial refund was received, which was accepted under protest, and indicated an intention to file a fresh writ petition challenging the competent authority's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the State's action in not reimbursing the full differential tax amount, following the transition from VAT to GST, violates the High Court's previous direction dated January 25, 2019, and the Finance Department's guidelines dated December 10, 2018? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the State's failure to reimburse the complete differential tax amount is in contravention of the specific directions issued by this Court and the administrative guidelines. They asserted that the refund received was partial and accepted under protest, implying a dispute over the quantum or the basis of calculation. Revenue/State's Argument: The State contended that the differential tax amount concerning the change of tax regime from VAT to GST has already been refunded to the petitioner. This implies they believe their obligation has been fulfilled.