Classic Engicon PVT LTD Through Its Director Mukesh Kumar vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary

Held

The Court held that it was not required to make any comments on the terms and clauses of the SOP dated August 26, 2022, as the SOP itself was not under challenge in these writ petitions. The Court noted that the SOP was framed at its instance to provide a mechanism for resolving individual grievances. It directed the petitioners to press their claims before the concerned departments or State Instrumentalities, or to make fresh claims so that the competent authorities could take informed decisions in accordance with the law and the SOP. The Court emphasized that any decision by the authorities could give rise to a fresh cause of action if a petitioner felt aggrieved. It also stated that petitioners could challenge any clause of the SOP if they were aggrieved by it. To ensure expeditious resolution, the Court directed that the representations or claims of the individual petitioners be decided preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court clarified that any previous stand taken by the respondents regarding the correctness of claims would not prevent them from taking a fresh decision under the new SOP. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any comments on the merits of the individual petitioners' cases.

Facts

This judgment concerns a batch of writ petitions filed by various construction companies (petitioners) against the State of Jharkhand and its departments (respondents). The core issue revolves around the payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on work orders issued during the pre-GST regime (VAT regime) but executed partly or wholly after the implementation of GST on July 1, 2017. The petitioners sought reimbursement of the differential GST amounts paid. The High Court had previously directed the State Government to issue guidelines for such cases. Consequently, the State Government framed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated August 26, 2022, to address these grievances. The petitioners' counsel acknowledged the SOP but sought a direction for expeditious decision-making by the authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should comment on the clauses of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated August 26, 2022, framed for post-GST payments on pending bills related to work orders issued during the pre-GST regime? Petitioner's argument: The petitioners, while not directly challenging the SOP, argued that the issue of reimbursement of differential GST has been pending for a long time and requested the Court to direct the competent authorities to decide their individual claims within a strict timeframe. They sought a mechanism for resolution rather than a judicial review of the SOP itself. Revenue/State's argument: The respondents submitted that since the SOP has been framed, individual petitioners should approach the competent authorities under the respondent departments to address their grievances. They contended that any observations on the SOP's clauses would be inappropriate as the SOP itself is not under challenge in these writ petitions.