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 on December 14, 2016. 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. After GST implementation, for some bills pertaining to work executed before GST, the petitioner was burdened with GST at 12%. They sought reimbursement of this additional tax burden, which they argued was already accounted for in the pre-GST contract. The petitioner filed a representation dated November 24, 2022, with respondent No. 3 (Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department) for reimbursement of GST leviable at 12%, after adjusting for pre-GST tax benefits. This representation was not acted upon, leading to the present writ application.

Held

The Court noted the limited prayer made by the petitioner in the writ application. Instead of deciding the substantive claim for reimbursement, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation with respondent No. 3, providing detailed particulars of their claim. Upon receiving 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 delve into the merits of the GST reimbursement claim or the interpretation of the notification. The procedural history of the representation not being acted upon was the primary driver for the Court's disposal order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of GST at 12% on work executed prior to the GST regime, considering that pre-GST taxes were already embedded in the contract? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that the tax liability under the pre-GST regime was embedded in the contract. Upon implementation of GST, they were made to pay GST at 12% on work executed prior to GST, and this additional burden should be reimbursed to the extent of the tax already embedded in the contract. They rely on the notification dated August 26, 2022, issued by respondent No. 7 (Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department) for reimbursement of GST. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents. However, the context implies the State's position would be to contest the reimbursement claim.