9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 371 - HC - GSTWorks Contract - Post GST era -The claim of the Petitioner is one for money which it seeks as reimbursement from the Opposite Parties - Constitutional Validity of taxes being shared and borne by the petitioner on post enactment Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - direction not to restitute the benefit of GST to the petitioner along with interest within a stipulated period in respect of work in which the estimated was prepared under the VAT law - infringement of GST Act - time limitation - HELD THAT - The instant matter being similar to that of the case decided by this Court in CHANDRA SEKHAR JENA VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS 2021 (10) TMI 1350 - ORISSA HIGH COURT , the present writ petition is hereby dismissed in the similar fashion and, thus, this Court holds that the claim of the petitioner is hit by law of limitation - It was held in the case of CHANDRA SEKHAR JENA that the agreement in question is dated 26th April, 2016 with the time for completion being 11 months. Clearly, therefore, any claim now raised arising from the said contract would be time barred. It is, therefore, not possible to accede to the prayer of the Petitioner. Before parting, this Court wishes to observe that the petitioner has made a prayer to restrain the opposite parties, authorities of the CT GST Organisation, from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner to recover amount of GST. Qua such a prayer, it is necessary to record that the task of determining the quantum of GST having regard to liability is of the Authority vested with power under the CGST/OGST Act and not within the domain of any other - The claim of the Petitioner ultimately, in simple terms, is one for money which it seeks as reimbursement from the Opposite Parties. It is not possible for this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to calculate on a case to case basis which component of the work executed by the Petitioner for reimbursement on account of GST and which is not. This being a disputed question of fact, the Court declines to undertake this exercise in the writ jurisdiction and leaves it to the Petitioner to seek other appropriate remedies available to him in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Propriety of Revised Guidelines relating to works contract issued by the Government of Odisha. 2. Legality and constitutionality of the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018. 3. Restitution of GST benefit to the petitioner. 4. Preparation of a fresh schedule of rates considering the change in rates and prices. 5. Coercive actions against the petitioner regarding GST recovery. Detailed Analysis: 1. Propriety of Revised Guidelines relating to works contract issued by the Government of Odisha: The petitioner challenged the Revised Guidelines issued by the Government of Odisha in Finance Department through Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018. The guidelines required that incomplete or balance work be estimated by excluding the GST component as per the Revised Schedule of Rates, 2014 (SoR, 2014). The petitioner argued that the guidelines were arbitrary and increased the liability under the GST regime. 2. Legality and constitutionality of the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018: The petitioner sought to declare the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The Court referenced previous judgments, including the case of Harish Chandra Majhi Vrs. State of Odisha, where the validity of the Office Memorandum was upheld. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge, noting that the guidelines were a procedural measure for calculating tax during the transition to the GST regime. 3. Restitution of GST benefit to the petitioner: The petitioner requested the restitution of the GST benefit along with interest for work estimated under VAT law. The Court observed that the claim was time-barred, as the agreements were completed in 2017. The Court referenced the case of Chandra Sekhar Jena Vrs. State of Odisha, where similar claims were dismissed due to the statute of limitations. 4. Preparation of a fresh schedule of rates considering the change in rates and prices: The petitioner argued that the revised SoR-2014 was arbitrary and requested a fresh schedule of rates. The Court found that the revised SoR-2014 was prepared to exclude pre-GST tax components and was applicable uniformly across the state. The Court did not find the petitioner's contention convincing, as the revised rates accounted for the changed tax amount only. 5. Coercive actions against the petitioner regarding GST recovery: The petitioner sought to restrain the authorities from taking coercive steps to recover the GST amount. The Court stated that determining the quantum of GST liability is within the authority vested by the CGST/OGST Act and not within the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court declined to undertake this exercise, leaving it to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies through other legal avenues. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed on grounds of being time-barred and lacking merit. The Court upheld the validity of the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018 and declined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was advised to seek other appropriate remedies available in accordance with the law.
|
