Facts of the Case

Triveni Engicons Private Ltd. — the same contractor as in a companion writ petition against the Road Construction Department — brought this petition against the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, in connection with a canal/irrigation works contract under the Subernrekha Multipurpose Project.

As in the companion matter, the petitioner's grievance was that GST at 12% (following the post-GST rate transition) was levied on bills relating to work executed for a contract entered into before GST came into force, and that this additional tax burden — already embedded in the contract price under the earlier excise/VAT regime — ought to be reimbursed. A representation seeking such reimbursement had not been acted upon by the department.

As with the companion case, the Court did not examine the merits of the GST-cost reimbursement claim; it simply disposed of the petition with liberty to file a fresh, detailed representation, directing the department to decide it with reasons within a fixed period.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Water Resources Department could be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation for GST-cost reimbursement arising from the post-GST rate transition.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The GST liability embedded in bills for work executed under a pre-GST contract, following the transition to the GST regime, ought to be reimbursed by the department, and a representation to that effect had gone unanswered.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No substantive defence on the reimbursement claim is recorded; the matter proceeded on the limited prayer for disposal of the representation.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court did not examine the merits of the GST-reimbursement claim or the contractual basis for the tax pass-through.
  • In view of the limited prayer, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh, detailed representation within three weeks.
  • The Water Resources Department was directed to consider such representation and pass a reasoned, speaking order within four weeks of its submission.

Important Clarification

Like its companion matter against the Road Construction Department, this order does not decide the reimbursement question on merits — it simply requires the department to decide the contractor's representation, with reasons, within a fixed timeframe. It should not be read as any precedent on whether mid-contract GST rate increases must be absorbed by government departments.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — rate transition from the pre-GST indirect tax regime
  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits — the writ petition was closed with a direction to the Water Resources Department to consider the petitioner's fresh representation on GST-cost reimbursement and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
  • Case No.: W.P.(T) No.3335 of 2023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Mukhopadhyay and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

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.