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 July 3, 2017, for widening and strengthening a road. The petitioner's case is 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 bills related to work executed before GST, the petitioner was subjected to a 12% GST liability. The petitioner sought reimbursement of this additional tax burden, which they argued was already accounted for in the pre-GST contract. They filed a representation dated November 29, 2022, before Respondent No. 3 (Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department), but it was not acted upon, leading to the present writ application.

Held

The Court noted the limited prayer made by the petitioner, which was for a direction to consider and dispose of their representation dated November 29, 2022. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for GST reimbursement. Instead, it disposed of the writ application by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 3 within three weeks. If such a representation is filed, Respondent No. 3 is directed to consider it and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of submission. The Court did not decide on the entitlement to GST reimbursement or the validity of the petitioner's claim regarding embedded tax benefits. The core of the decision is procedural, directing the authority to consider the representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of GST @ 12% on work executed prior to the GST regime, considering the tax benefits already embedded in the pre-GST contract? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contends that the tax liability for the work executed prior to the GST regime was already embedded in the contract. With the implementation of GST, they incurred an additional tax burden of 12% for which they are seeking reimbursement, as the benefit of the pre-GST tax regime is already incorporated. They rely on the notification dated August 26, 2022, issued by Respondent No. 7 (Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department) as a basis for their claim. Revenue/State's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. The State's counsel was present, but their contentions are not detailed in the order.