Facts of the Case

Triveni Engicons Private Ltd had been awarded a road-widening contract (Agreement No. 09/SBD/2016-17 dated 14.12.2016) by the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, before the GST regime commenced. The petitioner's case was that, for bills pertaining to work executed before GST but processed after its introduction, it was saddled with an additional 12% GST burden that was not embedded in the original contract price, and it sought reimbursement of this additional tax burden pursuant to a notification dated 26.08.2022 issued by the Commercial Taxes Department. Its representation dated 24.11.2022 seeking this reimbursement had not been acted upon by the Executive Engineer (respondent no.3).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Executive Engineer (respondent no.3) should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation seeking reimbursement of the additional GST burden on its pre-GST works contract.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner had to bear an additional 12% GST burden on bills relating to work executed prior to the GST regime, over and above what was embedded in the original contract price for excise duty, CST and VAT.
  • Its representation dated 24.11.2022, filed pursuant to the government notification of 26.08.2022 on GST reimbursement, had not been acted upon.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for the State; no specific counter-arguments contesting the reimbursement claim on merits are recorded in the order.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court did not decide whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the additional 12% GST burden.
  • In view of the limited prayer, it disposed of the writ application with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh, detailed representation setting out its claim before respondent no.3 within three weeks.
  • If such a representation is filed, respondent no.3 was directed to consider it and pass a reasoned, speaking order within four weeks of its submission.

Important Clarification

No ruling was made on whether the contractor is actually entitled to reimbursement of the GST burden on its pre-GST agreement — the order only compels the department to properly consider and decide a fresh, complete representation within a fixed timeframe.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — the source of the additional 12% tax burden claimed to have arisen on bills for pre-GST work executed post-implementation.
  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226, under which the writ application was filed.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits — the petitioner secured liberty to file a fresh representation and a time-bound direction for the department to decide it by a reasoned order.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
  • Case Number: W.P.(T) No. 3241 of 2023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
  • Date of Order: 04.07.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.