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 2013. The contract involved earthwork, lining, and structures for a canal. The petitioner claims that prior to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, their tax liability (excise duty, central sales tax, VAT) was embedded in the contract. After the implementation of GST, for bills pertaining to work executed before the GST regime, the petitioner was allegedly saddled with a 12% GST liability. The petitioner sought reimbursement of this additional tax burden, which they argued was already accounted for in the pre-GST tax embedded in the contract. They filed a representation dated 18.11.2022 before Respondent No. 3 (Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department), but it remained unacted upon, leading to the present writ application.

Held

The Court noted the limited prayer made by the petitioner, which was for a direction upon Respondent No. 3 to consider and dispose of their representation dated 18.11.2022. The representation sought reimbursement of GST leviable at 12% on work awarded prior to the GST regime, after adjusting for the tax benefit already embedded in the pre-GST contract. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for reimbursement. Instead, it disposed of the writ application by granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation with detailed claims before Respondent No. 3 within three weeks. The Court directed Respondent No. 3 to consider this representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of its submission. The principle derived is that administrative authorities must consider and decide representations filed by parties in a timely and reasoned manner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of GST @ 12% on work executed prior to the GST regime, considering the tax embedded in the pre-GST contract? The petitioner argued that the GST regime introduced an additional tax burden for work executed before its implementation, as the pre-GST taxes were already embedded in the contract price. They contended that the notification dated 26.08.2022 issued by Respondent No. 7 (Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department) should be considered for reimbursement of this additional tax burden. The respondents did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the court's disposal of the matter suggests that the primary issue was the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of GST on pre-GST work and the need for the authority to consider their representation.