M/S K K Builder PVT LTD Represented By Its Director Mr Kumud Ranjan Pathak vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Water Resources Deptt

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution. The primary reason for dismissal was the non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel on the day of the hearing. Additionally, the Court noted that numerous defects pointed out by the office regarding the filing of the petition had not been rectified by the petitioner. This indicated a lack of interest from the petitioner in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the reimbursement of GST and interest. No specific finding was made on the interpretation of clause 13.5 of the SBD or the contractual provisions concerning GST.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s K. K. Builder Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court seeking directions for reimbursement of the differential amount of increased GST at 8% as per clause 13.5 of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) and contract clauses in various works departments of the Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner also sought consequential directions for payment of interest on this differential tax amount. The respondents are various authorities from the Water Resources Department and the State Tax Department of Jharkhand. The petition was listed for hearing, but the petitioner's counsel did not appear. The office had also pointed out numerous defects in the petition's filing, which remained unaddressed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the differential GST amount at 8% as per clause 13.5 of the SBD and contract clauses, and consequential interest? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that clause 13.5 of the SBD and the contract provisions entitled them to reimbursement of the increased GST amount of 8% levied after the tender receipt. They sought directions for payment of this differential tax along with interest. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the presence of the learned counsel for the respondents indicates their opposition or defense against the petitioner's claims. The primary issue revolves around the interpretation and applicability of the contractual clause regarding GST reimbursement.