Triveni Engicons Private Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Uttam Kumar Mallick vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary

Facts

The petitioner, Triveni Engicons Private Limited, was awarded a work contract by the respondent No.4 (Executive Engineer, Waterways Division, Chaibasa) on August 2, 2018. Subsequently, the GST rate applicable to the work contract increased from 12% to 18% effective July 18, 2022, due to Notification No. 03/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated July 13, 2022. This increase resulted in an additional GST liability for the petitioner. The petitioner's claims for reimbursement of this additional tax amount were declined by respondent No.4 through letters dated December 6, 2022, March 29, 2023, and June 10, 2023. The petitioner then filed a representation on June 14, 2023, to respondent No.3 (Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department) seeking reimbursement of the additional GST. The petitioner also sought a direction for respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of this representation.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's primary prayer was for a direction upon respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of their representation dated June 14, 2023, seeking reimbursement of the additional GST amount. The Court also took cognizance of previous writ applications filed by similarly situated assessees, which were disposed of on October 12, 2022, with directions to file fresh representations and for the concerned departments to dispose of them. In light of the limited prayer made by the petitioner and the precedent set by earlier orders, the Court decided to dispose of the writ application by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is mandated to consider and dispose of this representation with a speaking and reasoned order within eight weeks of its receipt. The Court did not delve into the merits of the reimbursement claim itself but facilitated the procedural step for its consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the additional Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount incurred due to a change in the tax rate from 12% to 18% on a work contract executed prior to the rate change, specifically concerning the Agreement dated August 2, 2018, and Notification No. 03/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated July 13, 2022? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the increase in GST rate from 12% to 18% resulted in an additional liability that was not embedded in the contract and should be reimbursed. They relied on the principle that genuine rate changes impacting the contractor should be addressed, referencing previous writ applications disposed of on October 12, 2022, which directed similar petitioners to file fresh representations. Respondents' contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the initial rejection of the petitioner's claim by respondent No.4 indicates a stance against reimbursement.