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 Road Construction Department of Jharkhand Government in 2018. The petitioner claims that prior to the GST regime, their tax liabilities (excise duty, CST, VAT) were embedded in the contract. After the implementation of GST, for bills pertaining to work executed before the GST regime, the petitioner was made liable for GST at 12%. Subsequently, a notification (Notification No. 3/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022) increased the GST rate from 12% to 18%. The petitioner sought reimbursement of this additional GST amount from the respondent No. 3, the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department. The petitioner filed a representation on 27.03.2023, which was not acted upon, leading to the present writ application.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's prayer was limited to a direction for the respondent No. 3 to consider and dispose of their representation dated 27.03.2023. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of the additional GST amount due to the change in tax rate from 12% to 18% on work executed prior to the GST regime. In view of the limited prayer, the Court disposed of the writ application by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation detailing their claim before respondent No. 3 within three weeks. The Court directed respondent No. 3 to consider this fresh representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of its submission. The Court did not make any findings on the merits of the petitioner's claim for reimbursement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the additional Goods and Services Tax (GST) levied due to the change in tax rate from 12% to 18% on work executed prior to the GST regime, as per Notification No. 3/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the original contract price included embedded taxes. They sought reimbursement for the increased GST burden arising from the rate change, particularly for work executed before the GST regime, and relied on the principle that tax liabilities should not be unilaterally imposed or increased beyond the contractual understanding. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the State respondents regarding the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of the additional GST.