M/S.B Engineers And Builders PVT.LTD. vs. Executive Engineer,Rural Works Division

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issue of entitlement to the differential tax amount. Instead, it accepted the petitioner's submission to approach the opposite parties for the appointment of a committee to resolve the dispute. The Court directed the opposite parties to consider any such representation made by the petitioner for the formation of a committee and to take a decision in accordance with the law within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the representation, accompanied by a certified copy of the Court's order. The writ petition was disposed of based on this procedural arrangement.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the action of the opposite parties (revenue/State) for not reimbursing the differential tax amount. This differential amount arose due to the transition from the VAT regime to the GST regime, which became effective from July 1, 2017. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner intended to approach the opposite parties to request the formation of a committee for resolving the dispute concerning the reimbursement of the differential tax amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the differential tax amount due to the change from VAT to GST regime, and if so, what is the procedure for resolving such disputes? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of transitional provisions under GST law and relevant government policies). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner is entitled to the differential tax amount and seeks a mechanism for its resolution. The petitioner's counsel indicated an intention to approach the opposite parties for the appointment of a committee to resolve the dispute. Revenue/State's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not mention any arguments presented by the revenue or State.