M/S Eagle Infra INDIA Limited Represented By Authorized Mr Prashant Vasantrao Khandale vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by a previous decision in W.P.(T) No. 4885 of 2022. Respondent no.3, JUIDCO, accepted that the case was covered by this decision and submitted that the differential amount of taxes would be reimbursed to the petitioner, subject to the submission of all relevant documents, in accordance with Jharkhand Gazette Notification No.422 dated 26.08.2022. The Court directed the petitioner to submit all relevant documents, supported by the judgment they were relying on, to respondent no.3 within two weeks. Upon receiving these documents, respondent no.3 was directed to calculate the amount due to the petitioner from the pre-GST period, acknowledging the petitioner's entitlement to reimbursement of GST along with statutory interest as per the GST Act, 2017, and its rules. The Court further stipulated that respondent no.3 must make a decision within eight weeks from the date of submission of all relevant documents. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd., filed a writ application challenging letters dated 11.12.2019 and 20.01.2020 issued by respondent no.3, Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited (JUIDCO). These letters communicated that the differential tax rate for contracts awarded during the pre-GST regime and post-GST imposition would not be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that tax liability was being fastened on running bills for work that was exempted, and that post-GST, the liability should fall on respondent no.3. The petitioner sought reimbursement of tax deducted from running bills, along with interest, citing a conflict with Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act due to the change in law with the enactment of the GST Act, 2017. The tax period in dispute pertains to the transition from the pre-GST regime to the GST regime.

Key Issues

1. Whether tax liability has been improperly fastened on the running bills of the petitioner for works that were exempted from service tax, and consequently, whether the tax liability post-GST enactment should be borne by respondent no.3, as per Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act and the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that tax liability was wrongly imposed on their running bills, especially for exempted portions of work. They argued that with the introduction of GST, the liability for post-GST tax should shift to respondent no.3. They also asserted that the deduction of tax from their running bills, particularly for the period transitioning to GST, was in conflict with Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, which deals with the effect of change in law. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the State or its officials regarding the tax liability or the interpretation of the relevant provisions. However, respondent no.3, JUIDCO, submitted a counter affidavit.