Disposed

Triveni Engicons Private Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Uttam Kumar Mallick v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC7 Jul 2023WPC/3235/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction upon the respondent Engineer in Chief to dispose of the petitioner's representation for GST reimbursement arising from a pre-GST work contract. The High Court disposed of the matter by granting liberty to file a fresh detailed representation within three weeks, directing a reasoned order within four weeks of its receipt.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh detailed representation within three weeks; respondent authority directed to pass a reasoned order within four weeks of its submission.

Triveni Engicons Private Limited through Its… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 3235 of 2023

¶2

Triveni Engicons Private Ltd., Bistupur, Jamshedpur through its authorized signatory Uttam Kumar Mallick

¶3

... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand though its Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶6

The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶7

The Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Engineering Hostel No. 2, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶8

The Chief Engineer (Communication), Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Engineering Hostel No. 2, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶9

The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Road Circle, Manoharpur, Chaibasa

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Road Division, Manoharpur, Chaibasa

¶11

The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
	Ms. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Adv.
	Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate
For the State	: Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C. I &
	Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. S.C. I

¶16

¶17

Order No. 02 Dated 07^th July, 2023

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides.

¶19

In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent No. 3 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 10.11.2022 filed by the petitioner pursuant to the notification dated 26.08.2022 issued by the respondent No. 7 for reimbursement of the amount of Goods and Services Tax (GST) leviable upon the petitioner @ 12% after adjusting the tax benefit of pre-GST regime which is already embedded in respect of work awarded to the petitioner vide Agreement No. 01/SBD/2016-17 dated 12.04.2016.

¶20

The State of Jharkhand through respondent No. 6 had issued an e-tender inviting bids for work “Construction of Bypass by providing

¶21

-2-

¶22

elevated corridor near Rankini Mandir on Hata-Musabani Road”. The petitioner who had participated in the tender process was declared successful and was accordingly awarded the work in question pursuant to which an agreement dated 12.04.2016 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 6.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that prior to the implementation of the GST regime, the petitioner was required to discharge the liability which was embedded in the contract pertaining to excise duty, central sales tax and purchase of goods and VAT in respect of transfer of property and goods for execution of the works contract. However, after the implementation of the GST regime in respect of some bills which were although pertaining to work executed prior to GST regime, the petitioner was saddled with liability of GST @ 12 % and GST bill 12% was required to be reimbursed to the petitioner to the extent of the tax paid which was already embedded in the contract. The petitioner had claimed reimbursement of the additional tax burden due to implementation of the GST regime for which the petitioner had filed representation before the respondent No. 3, but the same was not acted upon, thus prompting the petitioner to prefer the present writ application.

¶24

In view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner in this writ application, the same stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation giving in details his claim before the respondent No. 3 within a period of three weeks and if such representation is preferred, the respondent No. 3 shall consider it and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the representation.

¶25

This writ application stands disposed of.

¶26

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶27

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶28

Shamim/

Triveni Engicons Private Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Uttam Kumar Mallick v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Triveni Engicons Private Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Uttam Kumar Mallick v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarang Kumar Jtotishi Vs Sagarika Jyotishi

Santosh Kumar Mahato Vs Anjali Mahato

Ms Binit Tyre through Its Proprietor Sri Lalit Kumar Jain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Prop M/S Eastern Express Fesh and Clean Service Vs Union of India through the Principal Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax (Cgst)

Satyaprakash Verma Alias Subhash Vs Shikha Kumari Alias Guddi Alias Guriya

Mukesh Kumar Mahato Vs Yogita Devi