Ms Harvin Construction PVT LTD Through Its Authorized Sginatory Gunapati Murali Krishna Reddy vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court held that it was not required to make any comments on the terms and clauses of the SOP at this stage, as the SOP itself was not under challenge. The Court noted that the SOP was framed at its instance to provide a mechanism for addressing individual grievances. The Court directed that the petitioners should press their claims before the concerned departments or State Instrumentalities, or make fresh claims, so that competent authorities could take informed decisions in accordance with the law and the SOP dated August 26, 2022. The Court emphasized that these decisions should be taken within a strict timeframe, preferably within 8 weeks from the receipt of the order. The Court also 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. If any petitioner felt aggrieved by the decision, it would give rise to a fresh cause of action, and it would also be open to challenge any clause of the SOP if so aggrieved.

Facts

A batch of writ petitions were filed by various construction companies and individuals against the State of Jharkhand and its departments. The core issue pertained to the payment of pending bills for works awarded during the pre-GST regime, where services were partly or wholly executed post-GST implementation (July 1, 2017). The petitioners sought reimbursement of differential GST paid. The Jharkhand High Court had previously directed the State Government to issue guidelines. Consequently, a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was framed and notified on August 26, 2022, to address these grievances. The petitioners, while not directly challenging the SOP, pointed out perceived lacunae. The respondents submitted that the SOP provided a mechanism for petitioners to approach competent authorities for their grievances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should comment on the clauses of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated August 26, 2022, which was framed to address grievances related to post-GST payments on pre-GST work orders? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners, while not formally challenging the SOP, highlighted potential shortcomings in its clauses. They argued that the issue of pending bills had been unresolved for a long time and sought a directive for a swift decision on their claims. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents argued that since the SOP was not under challenge, any observations on its clauses would be inappropriate. They contended that individual petitioners should approach the competent authorities under the respective departments as per the SOP for their grievances regarding GST reimbursement.