Nishit Kumar Jain vs. Madhya Pradesh Warehousing Logistic Corporation

Held

The Court held that the questions requiring determination – whether the petitioner submitted the affidavit, the nature of the change in taxation incidence, and its quantum – are all matters of fact. Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner could avail a remedy under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. The Court referred to Section 2(d) of the Act, defining 'dispute' as a claim of ascertained or ascertainable money valued at Rupees 50,000 or more relating to differences arising out of a works contract. The Court also acknowledged that the contract in question qualified as a 'works contract' under Section 2(i) of the same Act. Therefore, the Court declined interference on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue his claim before the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran.

Facts

The petitioner, Nishit Kumar Jain, a contractor, was awarded a construction contract by the Madhya Pradesh Warehousing and Logistic Corporation on December 1, 2015. The work continued after July 1, 2017, when the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act came into force. The petitioner's grievance is that deductions were made from his bills on account of GST, arguing he should not be liable for a tax that was not in effect when he submitted his bid. Previously, this Court directed the respondents to decide the matter. The respondents informed the petitioner that he had submitted an affidavit stating he would not claim any balance amount due to changes in taxation after the GST Act's implementation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner actually submitted an affidavit agreeing not to claim any balance amount on account of the change in taxation post-GST implementation, as contended by the respondents? (Question of fact) 2. What was the actual change in the incidence of taxation on the contract in question due to the introduction of the GST Act? (Question of fact) 3. What is the quantum of such change in taxation? (Question of fact) Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner's primary contention is that he should not be liable for GST on a contract awarded before its implementation, as the tax came into force after his bid submission. He disputes the existence or validity of any affidavit he might have submitted regarding the GST liability. Contentions of the Respondents: The respondents contend that the petitioner had submitted an affidavit acknowledging the GST implementation and waiving any claim for balance amounts arising from the change in taxation. They rely on this affidavit to deny the petitioner's claim.