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 Ltd., was awarded a work contract by the State of Jharkhand in 2016 for the construction of a bypass. The petitioner claims that prior to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, their tax liabilities (excise duty, central sales tax, VAT) were embedded in the contract. Upon the implementation of GST, the petitioner was allegedly saddled with an additional liability of 12% GST on bills pertaining to work executed before the GST regime. The petitioner sought reimbursement of this additional tax burden. They filed a representation dated 10.11.2022 before Respondent No. 3 (Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department) for reimbursement of the GST amount, pursuant to a notification dated 26.08.2022 issued by Respondent No. 7 (Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department). As the representation was not acted upon, the petitioner filed the present writ application.

Held

The Court noted the limited prayer made by the petitioner, which was for a direction to consider and dispose of their representation. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for GST reimbursement. Instead, it directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 3 (Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department) within three weeks, providing details of their claim. Upon receipt of this fresh representation, Respondent No. 3 is mandated to consider it and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of submission. The Court explicitly stated that the writ application stands disposed of with these directions, leaving the substantive issue of reimbursement to be decided by the concerned authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of GST amounting to 12% on work executed prior to the GST regime, considering the tax benefits already embedded in the pre-GST contract? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contends that the GST regime introduced an additional tax burden for work executed before its implementation. They argue that the pre-GST tax liabilities were already accounted for in the contract price. Therefore, they are entitled to reimbursement of the GST amount, adjusted for any tax benefits already received from the pre-GST regime. They rely on the notification dated 26.08.2022 issued by the Commercial Taxes Department for their claim. Revenue/State's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State of Jharkhand and its departments).