Facts of the Case

Triveni Engicons Private Ltd. had been awarded a road-construction contract (Agreement No.01/SBD/2016-17 dated 12.04.2016) by the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, for construction of a bypass with an elevated corridor on the Hata-Musabani Road. The agreement predated the GST regime, and embedded within its pricing were pre-GST levies such as excise duty, central sales tax, and VAT on transfer of property in goods used in the works contract. After the implementation of GST, the petitioner became liable to pay GST at 12% on some bills relating to work executed before the GST rollout, and claimed reimbursement of this additional tax burden to the extent it had already been embedded in the pre-GST contract price — a claim it said was covered by a notification dated 26.08.2022. The petitioner's representation dated 10.11.2022 to the Chief Engineer (respondent no.3) went unactioned, leading to the filing of W.P.(T) No.3235 of 2023, decided on 07.07.2023.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the GST burden on bills pertaining to pre-GST work, under the notification dated 26.08.2022.
  2. Whether the respondent authority should be directed to decide the petitioner's pending representation on this claim.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner sought a direction upon the Chief Engineer to consider and dispose of its representation dated 10.11.2022, seeking reimbursement of GST at 12% leviable on the petitioner, after adjusting for the tax benefit of the pre-GST regime already embedded in the contract.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No specific opposition is recorded on behalf of the State respondents in the order; the writ application was disposed of on the limited relief actually sought by the petitioner.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Jharkhand High Court, noting the limited prayer made by the petitioner, disposed of the writ application by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh, detailed representation before the Chief Engineer (respondent no.3) within three weeks.
  • The respondent no.3 was directed to consider such representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of its submission.

Important Clarification

This is a bare procedural remand — the Court has not decided whether the contractor is actually entitled to GST reimbursement under the 26.08.2022 notification. That determination is left entirely to the Chief Engineer, who must now pass a reasoned order; contractors in similar pre-GST/post-GST transition situations should note that the entitlement itself remains an open question to be argued before the departmental authority.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — transition provisions and reimbursement claims for pre-GST works contracts (as governed by the departmental notification dated 26.08.2022)
  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with a purely procedural direction — the respondent authority was directed to decide the petitioner's representation within a fixed timeline; no finding was made on the merits of the reimbursement claim, so neither side succeeded outright.

Case Details

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi | W.P.(T) No.3235 of 2023 | Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan | Date: 07 July 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.