9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 232 - HC - GSTLegal right of the petitioner on account of the Taxes being shared and borne by the petitioner on post enactment goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - infringement of GST Act, 2017 - restitution of benefit of GST to the petitioner - direction to prepare a fresh schedule of rates considering rapidly change of rate and price - calculation of differential amount of GST on the contract in which estimate was prepared under VAT - HELD THAT - On perusal of the judgment delivered by this Court in M/S. HARISH CHANDRA MAJHI VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA OTHERS 2021 (6) TMI 381 - ORISSA HIGH COURT , the Court finds that the Court has dealt with a large number of grounds which are more or less similar to the points urged in the present petition - it was held in the case that The statute should clearly and unambiguously convey three components of the tax law i.e., the subject of the tax, the person who is liable to pay the tax and the rate at which the tax is to be paid. In the instant case, three components of the tax, i.e., subject of tax, person liable to pay the tax and rate of tax has been clearly defined in the statute. The OM dated 10th December, 2018 only prescribes the manner/procedure of calculation to determine the amount of tax in a particular eventuality in the transitional period of migration to GST Act with effect from 1st July, 2017. The Court is not satisfied that any new ground has been made out requiring the Court to revisit its judgment in Harish Chandra Majhi. Consequently, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned petition. It is dismissed for the reasons already stated in Harish Chandra Majhi. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the action and decision of the Opposite Parties under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 2. Restitution of GST benefit to the Petitioner along with interest for work estimated under the VAT law. 3. Legality of the Office memorandum dated 10.12.2018. 4. Challenge to the Notice under Annexure-3. 5. Direction to prepare a fresh schedule of rates and calculate the differential amount of GST on contracts estimated under VAT. Analysis: 1. The Petitioner challenged the action and decision of the Opposite Parties under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, alleging it to be illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of their legal rights. The Court noted that similar grounds were addressed in a previous judgment (Harish Chandra Majhi) where the Court had dealt with comparable issues. The Petitioner tried to distinguish the present case by highlighting differences between the notifications of the Government of India and the Government of Orissa. However, the Court found no new grounds compelling enough to revisit the previous judgment. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition, citing the reasons stated in the earlier judgment. 2. The Petitioner sought restitution of the GST benefit with interest for work estimated under the VAT law. However, the Court, after comparing the current petition with the previous judgment in Harish Chandra Majhi, found no significant new grounds that warranted a different outcome. As a result, the Court dismissed this prayer along with the petition, maintaining consistency with the previous decision. 3. The legality of the Office memorandum dated 10.12.2018 was also challenged by the Petitioner. Despite the arguments put forth by the Petitioner's counsel, the Court reiterated its stance from the previous judgment and declined to interfere with the impugned petition. The Court found no compelling reasons to reconsider the matter and dismissed the petition accordingly. 4. The Petitioner had initially challenged the Notice under Annexure-3, but later informed the Court that the notice had been responded to. Consequently, this specific prayer was not pressed further by the Petitioner during the proceedings, and the Court did not delve into the details of this issue. 5. Lastly, the Petitioner sought a direction for the Opposite Party to prepare a fresh schedule of rates and calculate the differential amount of GST on contracts estimated under VAT. However, given the Court's analysis of the previous judgment and the lack of new grounds in the present petition, this prayer was also dismissed along with the entire petition. The Court concluded the judgment by dismissing the petition without any order as to costs, maintaining the consistency of its decisions in similar matters.
|
