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 08.05.2017. 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. Post-GST implementation, for work executed before the regime but billed later, the petitioner was charged 12% GST. They sought reimbursement for this additional tax burden, which they argued was already covered by the pre-GST embedded taxes. The petitioner also sought reimbursement for an increase in GST rate from 12% to 18% on certain bills due to a notification dated 13.07.2022. Having filed a representation dated 01.12.2022 before Respondent No. 3 which remained unaddressed, the petitioner filed this writ application.

Held

The Court noted the limited prayer made by the petitioner in the writ application. Instead of deciding the merits of the reimbursement claims, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh, detailed representation before Respondent No. 3 within three weeks. Upon receipt of this 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 did not make any findings on the entitlement to GST reimbursement or the impact of the rate change. The specific provisions of the GST Act or relevant contractual clauses were not extensively discussed in relation to the final order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of GST @ 12% on work executed prior to the GST regime, considering that pre-GST taxes were embedded in the contract? This issue turns on the interpretation of the contract and the impact of GST implementation on existing contractual obligations. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the additional GST amount due to the rate change from 12% to 18% as per Notification No. 3/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022 for work executed under the agreement dated 08.05.2017? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the GST liability for work executed prior to the GST regime should be reimbursed as the pre-GST taxes were already embedded in the contract price. They also sought reimbursement for the increased GST rate due to the subsequent notification. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents.