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 road construction work contract by the State of Jharkhand in January 2018. 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 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 30.11.2022 with respondent No. 3, but it remained unaddressed, leading to the present writ application.

Held

The Court acknowledged the limited prayer made by the petitioner, which was for a direction to consider and dispose of their representation. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for GST reimbursement or the calculation of the embedded tax benefit. Instead, it disposed of the writ application by granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh, detailed representation before respondent No. 3 within three weeks. Upon receipt of this representation, 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's decision focuses on procedural relief rather than substantive determination of the GST dispute.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of GST @ 12% on work executed prior to the GST regime, after adjusting for the tax benefit already embedded in the pre-GST contract? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contends that the GST liability of 12% imposed on work executed before the GST regime represents an additional tax burden. They argue that the pre-GST contract already incorporated liabilities for excise duty, central sales tax, and VAT, and the GST reimbursement should account for this embedded tax benefit. They rely on the notification dated 26.08.2022 issued by respondent No. 7 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.