Triveni Engicons Private Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Uttam Kumar Mallick vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claim for GST reimbursement. Instead, in view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the writ application was disposed of with a liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No. 3. This representation should detail the petitioner's claim within a period of three weeks. Upon receiving such a representation, respondent No. 3 is directed to consider it and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of submission. The Court did not address the specific legal questions regarding the entitlement to reimbursement or the interpretation of the contract in light of GST implementation. The operative direction is to facilitate a formal consideration of the petitioner's grievance by the concerned authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Triveni Engicons Private Ltd., was awarded a work contract by the State of Jharkhand in 2013. Prior to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, the petitioner discharged liabilities for excise duty, central sales tax, and VAT embedded in the contract. After the GST implementation, the petitioner was burdened with GST at 12% for bills pertaining to work executed before the GST regime. The petitioner sought reimbursement of this additional tax burden, claiming it was already accounted for in the pre-GST contract. The petitioner filed a representation dated 06.06.2023 with respondent No. 3 (Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department) for reimbursement of the GST amount, but it was not acted upon, leading to the present writ application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the GST amount levied at 12% on work executed prior to the GST regime, considering the tax liability was 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 not contemplated in the original contract. They argue that the pre-GST taxes (excise duty, central sales tax, VAT) were already embedded in the contract price, and the GST should be reimbursed to the extent of this embedded tax benefit. The petitioner relies on the principle that a party should not suffer an unforeseen tax burden due to a change in law for work already contracted and executed. Revenue/State's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. The State's counsel appeared, but their contentions are not detailed in the provided text.