TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opies of different agreements vide Annexure-1 series in respect of works undertaken pleads that at the time of supplying estimate to the department concerned, he furnished estimated cost inclusive of value added tax. The Revised Guideline vide the Office Memorandum bearing No.38535-FIN-CT1-TAX-0045-2017/F., dated 10.12.2018 issued 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. Glance at copies of agreements placed at Annexure-1 series reveals the following: Date of agreement Agreement No. Date of commencement of work Date of completion of work 50P1 of 2016-17 18.07.2017 11.09.2017 10.10.2017 51P1 of 2016-17 18.07.2017 11.09.2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra, counsel for the Opposite Parties argued that the writ petition challenging the vires of Office Memorandum bearing No.38535-FIN-CT1-TAX-0045-2017/F., dated 10.12.2018 is not maintainable in view of the fact that very many works contractors on the introduction of the CGST/OGST Act with effect from 01.07.2017, challenged Office Memorandum bearing No.36116-FIN-CT1-TAX- 0045-2017/F., dated 07.12.2017. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Government of Odisha in Finance Department brought out Revised Guidelines for works contract vide Office Memorandum bearing No.38535-FINCT1- TAX-0045-2017/F., dated 10.12.2018. This Court disposed of said writ petition(s), one of them being W.P.(C) No. 6178 of 2018 : All Orissa Contractors Association Vrs. State of Odisha, vide Order dated 12th December, 2018 and extracting the Revised Guidelines in extensor, held as follows: *** In that view of the matter, the Petitioner shall make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within four weeks from today ventilating the grievance. If such a representation is filed, the authority will consider and dispose of the same, in the light of the aforesaid revised guidelines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hy the notice issued by the Opp. Party No. 9 under Annexure-9 shall not be declared illegal, arbitrary and same shall not be quashed? vi. why the Opp. Party shall not be directed to prepare a 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? *** 11. The basic price of materials as per SoR-2014 was inclusive of VAT, entry tax and other tax components. Since 1 July 2017 GST is payable on the value of the contract, the value of tax components in the price of the materials in SoR-2014 was revised and reduced by excluding such tax components prevalent during pre- GST period. As such, the revised SoR-2014 was issued on 16 September, 2017. 12. The Petitioner complains that the procedure adopted in the preparation of the revised SoR-2014 dated 16 September, 2017 (Annexure-8) is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Odisha Public Works Department Code (OPWD Code) and that the rates have not been determined on the basis of actual rates prevailing in different areas of the State. 13. The said submission of the Petitioner is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the Opposite Parties, referring to paragraph 10 of the writ petition, wherein the petitioner has attacked the Office Memorandum bearing No.38535-FIN-CT1-TAX- 0045-2017/F., dated 10.12.2018 on the specious ground that said Memo is not in conformity with the Guidelines issued by the National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India vide File No. NRRDA-GO21(17)/32017-FA, dated 06.06.2018, submitted that the same does not hold water as this Court threadbare comparing said Office Memorandum being NRRDA-GO21(17)/32017-FA, dated 06.06.2018 vis- -vis Office Memorandum No.38535-FIN-CT1-TAX-0045- 2017/F., dated 10.12.2018 in the matters of Harish Chandra Majhi Vrs. State of Odisha and others, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 643 = (2021) 51 GSTL 113 = (2021) 93 GSTR 354 (Ori) upheld the validity of the impugned Office Memorandum. 5.3. Therefore, the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost inasmuch as all the grounds of challenge have already been set at rest by this Court on earlier occasion. 6. Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Advocate for the petitioner has conceded to the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom 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. Further, the question whether, in fact, any amount is owed to the Petitioner by the 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 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. In such proceedings it would be open to either of the parties to rely on the pleadings of the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
