2025 (2) TMI 64 - HC - GST

Refund of the differential tax amount under the GST regime for a works contract awarded by the opposite party - HELD THAT - The refund be made to petitioner as said it will be in the counter. Opposite party no.2 is do all things required to ensure that the refund is disbursed within six weeks from date. For the purpose opposite party has liberty of producing certified copy of this order to concerned authority. Petition disposed off.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issue considered by the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the differential tax amount under the GST regime for a works contract awarded by the opposite party. This issue involved examining the procedural and administrative aspects related to the submission and approval of revised work bills incorporating post-GST rates, and the subsequent processing of payments through the Online Management Monitoring and Accounting System (OMMAS).

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Entitlement to Refund of Differential Tax Amount

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework involved the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, which necessitated the revision of work bills to incorporate post-GST rates. The guidelines issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, dated 10th December 2018, were pertinent to this case. Additionally, procedural norms for payment under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) through OMMAS were relevant.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with a directive to make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority. The petitioner complied by submitting a representation on 25th November 2019, but the refund was not processed. The Court recognized that the opposite party had not denied the petitioner's entitlement to reimbursement but required the submission of a revised bill incorporating post-GST rates for approval.

Key Evidence and Findings

The evidence included the petitioner's representation dated 25th November 2019, the counter affidavit by the opposite party, and communications between various authorities regarding the approval and processing of the revised bill. Notably, the final bill was paid on 8th December 2018, before the issuance of the revised GST rates on 10th December 2018, complicating the payment process.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court applied the guidelines issued by the Finance Department and the procedural requirements under PMGSY to the facts of the case. It found that the petitioner was entitled to the refund, as the opposite party had acknowledged the need for reimbursement and had taken steps to prepare and approve the revised bill.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The petitioner argued that despite reminders, the refund was not processed due to inaction by the authority. The opposite party countered that the delay was due to the petitioner's failure to submit the revised bill and the subsequent locking of the payment site. The Court considered both perspectives and emphasized the procedural steps taken by the opposite party to resolve the issue, including requests to unlock the payment site.

Conclusions

The Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the refund and directed the opposite party to ensure the disbursement within six weeks. The opposite party was granted the liberty to produce a certified copy of the order to the concerned authority to facilitate the process.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning

"The refund be made to petitioner, as said it will be in the counter. Opposite party no.2 is do all things required to ensure that the refund is disbursed within six weeks from date."

Core Principles Established

The judgment reinforced the principle that administrative and procedural compliance is necessary for the processing of refunds under the GST regime. It highlighted the responsibility of the awarding authority to facilitate the payment process, especially when procedural hurdles such as locked payment systems are encountered.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The Court determined that the petitioner was entitled to the refund and directed the opposite party to take necessary steps to ensure the refund is processed within the stipulated timeframe. The Court's order provided a clear directive to expedite the administrative process and resolve the issue of the locked payment system.