9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 981 - 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 Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - restitution of benefit of GST to the petitioner along with interest within a stipulated period in respect of work in which the estimate was prepared under the VAT law - direction to opposite party not to prepare fresh schedule of rates considering rapidly change of rate and price and calculate the 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. 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. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
- Challenge to the legality of actions and decisions of the Opposite Parties under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Direction sought for restitution of GST benefit with interest under the VAT law - Challenge to the legality of Office memorandum dated 10.12.2018 - Challenge to the legality of a specific letter - Direction sought for preparation of a fresh schedule of rates considering changes in rate and price and calculation of differential GST amount Analysis: 1. The petitioner raised five prayers challenging various actions and decisions of the Opposite Parties under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought a declaration of illegality, unconstitutionality, and violation of legal rights due to taxes shared and borne post the enactment of the GST Act. Additionally, a direction was requested for the restitution of GST benefit with interest under the VAT law, challenging the legality of an Office memorandum and a specific letter, and seeking a fresh schedule of rates considering changes in rate and price for the calculation of differential GST amount. 2. The petitioner decided not to press the challenge to a specific letter under Annexure-2, as the petitioner had already responded to the notice associated with it. However, the remaining four prayers were contested. The Additional Government Advocate for the State pointed out that a previous judgment by the court had ruled against similar prayers in a different case. The petitioner attempted to distinguish the present case from the previous judgment by highlighting discrepancies between the impugned notification of the Government of Orissa and the Government of India notification. The issue of embedded taxes not being excluded while determining the base price for GST levy was also raised. 3. Upon reviewing the previous judgment by the court in a similar case, it was found that the grounds raised in the present petition were largely similar to those already addressed in the previous judgment. The court concluded that no new grounds had been presented that warranted revisiting the earlier decision. Therefore, the court declined to interfere in the present petition and dismissed it based on the reasons already stated in the prior judgment. 4. The court dismissed the petition without any specific order as to costs. The decision was based on the lack of substantial new grounds that would necessitate a different outcome from the previous judgment, thereby upholding the ruling made in the earlier case. This detailed analysis outlines the issues raised by the petitioner, the arguments presented, the court's evaluation of the previous judgment, and the ultimate decision reached by the court in the present case.
|
