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

Held

The Court held that it would not comment on the 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 following its earlier direction to establish a mechanism for addressing individual grievances related to the reimbursement of differential GST paid on subsisting contracts as of July 1, 2017. The Court directed the petitioners to press their claims before the concerned departments or State Instrumentalities, or to make fresh claims, to enable the competent authorities to take informed decisions in accordance with the law and the SOP. The Court emphasized that these decisions should be made expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the receipt of the order. The Court also stated that any previous stand taken by the respondents regarding the correctness of individual claims would not prevent them from taking a fresh decision based on the new SOP. If any petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision made under the SOP, it would give rise to a fresh cause of action, and it would also be open for them to challenge specific clauses of the SOP if they are aggrieved.

Facts

This judgment concerns a batch of writ petitions filed by various construction companies, including M/s Sri Sai Krishna Constructions, M/s Royal Infraconstru Limited, M/s Harvin Construction Pvt. Ltd., M/s Spica Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., M/s Bhardwaj Construction Company (P) Ltd., M/s Sew Infrastructure Ltd., M/s Vijay Kant Pandey, M/s Pankaj Kumar Singh, and M/s Sidhartha Construction. The petitioners are contractors who were awarded work orders during the pre-GST regime but whose payments and execution of services extended into the post-GST period (from July 1, 2017). They are seeking reimbursement of differential GST paid on these contracts. The State of Jharkhand and its various departments are the respondents. The Court had previously directed the State Government to issue guidelines on this matter, leading to the formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated August 26, 2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should comment on the clauses of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated August 26, 2022, for post-GST payments on pending bills related to work orders issued during the pre-GST regime? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners, while not directly challenging the SOP, sought to highlight perceived lacunae within its clauses. They argued that the issue of pending bills and differential GST payments has been pending for a long time and requested the Court to direct the competent authorities to decide their claims within a strict timeframe. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents argued that since the SOP has been framed and is not under challenge, individual petitioners should approach the competent authorities under the concerned departments to address their grievances regarding reimbursement of GST paid on differential rates. They submitted that any observations on the SOP's clauses would be uncalled for at this stage.