Facts of the Case

Triveni Engicons Private Limited had been awarded a road-widening contract by the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, under Agreement No. 33/SBD/2017-18 dated 18.01.2018, for widening and strengthening the Jagannathpur-Swamba-Mailpi-Barkela Road. Before the GST regime came into force, the contract price embedded pre-GST indirect taxes (excise duty, central sales tax, VAT). After GST was implemented, the petitioner was required to pay GST at 12% on bills relating to work executed even before the GST rollout, and sought reimbursement of this additional tax burden to the extent it was already embedded in the pre-GST contract price. A notification dated 26.08.2022 by the Commercial Taxes Department was said to provide for such reimbursement, and the petitioner filed a representation dated 30.11.2022 before the Chief Engineer, which went undecided, leading to this writ petition.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the department should be directed to decide the petitioner's pending representation for GST reimbursement under the 26.08.2022 notification.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The contract price already embedded pre-GST indirect tax liability, but the petitioner was additionally saddled with 12% GST on post-GST bills for pre-GST work, and was entitled to reimbursement per the government's own 26.08.2022 notification.
  • The representation filed on 30.11.2022 had not been acted upon.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No specific opposing submissions on the merits are recorded; the matter proceeded on the petitioner's limited prayer for a decision on the pending representation.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench (Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan) disposed of the writ petition on its limited prayer, granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh, detailed representation with full particulars of its claim within three weeks.
  • The Chief Engineer (respondent No. 3) was directed to consider such representation and pass a reasoned, speaking order within four weeks of its submission.
  • No opinion was expressed on whether the petitioner was actually entitled to reimbursement of the GST differential.

Important Clarification

The Court did not decide whether contractors are entitled to reimbursement of GST paid on account of the transition from the pre-GST tax regime — it only directed a reasoned decision on the pending representation, within a set procedure and timeline. Contractors with similar GST transitional reimbursement claims against government departments should treat this as a template for seeking a decision, not as a precedent establishing entitlement.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — GST rate of 12% on works contract services, referenced as the basis of the reimbursement claim.
  • Notification dated 26.08.2022 issued by the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits — the petitioner secured only a procedural direction for a reasoned decision on its GST reimbursement representation, with entitlement left open.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Case No.: W.P.(T) No. 1836 of 2023
Coram: Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan
Date of Order: 01.05.2023

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.