TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T, i.e. segregating labour, material, etc. is of the Authority vested with power under the CGST/OGST Act and not within the domain of any other. Such segregation can be made keeping in view inter alia Revised Guidelines dated 10th December 2018 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha - The question whether, in fact, any amount is owed to the Petitioner by Opposite Parties on account of GST deducted from its bills or vice versa, has become a highly disputed question of fact. The claim of the Petitioner ultimately, in simple terms, is one for money which it seeks as reimbursement from 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 court while declining to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, dismisses the writ petition. - W.P.(C) No. 33627 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2022 - JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN Petitioner Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Advocate for the petitioner Opposite Parties Mr. Lalatendu Samant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed after introduction of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity, CGST Act ) and the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (abbreviated, OGST Act ) with effect from 01.07.2017 specified that incomplete/balance work shall have to be estimated by excluding component of GST in terms of Revised Schedule of Rates, 2014 (in short referred to as SoR, 2014 ). 4. Sri Prabodha Chandra Nayak, counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to comply with the provisions of GST Act relating to works contract the State Government have revised the SoR, 2014 vide Works Department Office Memorandum No.13827/WD, dated 16.09.2017 with effect from 01.07.2017. It is further submitted by Mr. Nayak that the revised estimated work value for the balance works spilled over after 01.07.2017 is required to be determined as per the SoR, 2014 as revised, i.e., in case of rates of any goods as service used in execution of the balance work not covered in the revised SoR, 2014, the tax exclusive basic value of that goods or service shall be determined by removing the embedded tax incidences of VAT, Entry Tax, Excise Duty, Service Tax, etc. from the estimated quoted price. Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by way of petition being W.P.(C) No.14924 of 2020, challenged the Revised Guidelines vide Office Memorandum No.38535- FIN-CT1-TAX-0045-2017/F., dated 10.12.2018 (Annexure- 2). This Court disposed of said case vide Judgment dated 07.06.2021 [reported as Harish Chandra Majhi Vrs. State of Odisha and others, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 643 = (2021) 51 GSTL 113 = (2021) 93 GSTR 354 (Ori)] by observing thus: 1. The Office Memorandum dated 10 December, 2018 of the Finance Department under Annexure-3 prescribing guidelines for the implementation of GST (Goods and Services Tax) in works contract in post-GST regime with effect from 1 July, 2017, the Revised Schedule of Rates-2014 (Revised SoR-2014) under Annexure-8 and the demand notice issued under Section 61 of the Odisha Goods and Services Act (OGST Act) has been questioned in the present writ petition and connected batch of cases. The prayers in the present petition read as under: i. why the action and decision of the Opp. Parties shall not be declared illegal, unconstitutional and violative of legal right of the Petitioner on account of the Taxes being shared and borne by the Petitioner on post enactment Goods and Services Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natory. 15. This contention of the Petitioner is not found convincing for the reason that, first, nothing has been brought on record to show any comparison of market rate in 2014 when SoR-2014 was issued and the market rate in 2017 when revised SoR was issued. Secondly, no dispute has been raised against the rates mentioned in pre-revised SoR-2014. The price difference in the revised SoR-2014 is to the extent of the changed tax amount only. Undoubtedly, the rates in revised SoR- 2014 are applicable for the works all over the State. 16. Works contract is a composite supply of services and is taxable under the GST. The earlier SoR-2014 issued on 10 November, 2014 was inclusive of taxes like Central Excise Duty, Service Tax, VAT, Entry Tax etc. After the GST regime only some of the tax components needed to be included. This necessitated a revision of SoR-2014 to arrive at the GST exclusive work value. The GST component is to be added to the work value. As the revised SoR is exclusive of the tax components, the estimated value of the work gets reduced to that extent. This was prepared under the recommendation of a Code Revision Committee and after verification of tax rate in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional Government Advocate Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray and reject the grounds set out by the petitioner. 7. Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate also placed for consideration of this Court that the prayer for restitution of benefit of GST along with interest is misleading inasmuch as the cause of action for the petitioner has already become time barred. He has pointed out that close scrutiny of copies of the Agreements vide Annexure-1 series appended to the writ petition would depict that against the column heading Stipulated date of completion in each of such Agreements, the date has been mentioned prior to enforcement of GST statutes. 7.1. This Court has perused said documents and found the contention of the Additional Government Advocate correct. The counsel for the petitioner, being confronted with such fact, argued that the contract period was extended beyond 01.07.2017 and execution of works was completed during GST regime. Such oral statement without corroborative material cannot be accepted at this stage. This Court, therefore, proceeds with the evidence enclosed to the writ petition supported by affidavit. 7.2. This Court in identical si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
