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 through an agreement dated 08.03.2019. The petitioner sought reimbursement of the additional Goods and Services Tax (GST) burden incurred due to a rate change from 12% to 18%, as per Notification No. 3/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022. The petitioner contended that prior to GST, taxes like excise duty, central sales tax, and VAT were embedded in the contract. Post-GST, for work executed before the GST regime, the petitioner was allegedly saddled with a 12% GST liability, which was to be reimbursed. The petitioner had filed a representation before Respondent No. 3 (Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department) for reimbursement of the additional tax burden, which remained unaddressed, leading to the present writ application.

Held

The Court noted the limited prayer made by the petitioner in the writ application. It directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation detailing their claim before Respondent No. 3 (Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department) within three weeks. Upon receipt of this fresh representation, Respondent No. 3 is mandated to consider the claim and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of submission. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of the additional GST burden but provided a procedural path for its adjudication. The core issue of entitlement to reimbursement was not decided on merits, but the process for its consideration was established.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the additional GST burden of 6% (from 12% to 18%) on work executed prior to the GST regime, considering the change in tax rate vide Notification No. 3/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the additional tax burden arose due to a change in the GST rate and that taxes were embedded in the original contract. They sought directions for reimbursement of this additional amount. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents. The court's disposal was based on the limited prayer of the petitioner.