Court dismisses challenge to Office Memorandum & Schedule of Rates, rejects restitution claim as time-barred.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the legality of the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018 and the revised Schedule of Rates (SoR) 2014. The petitioner's claims for restitution of GST benefits were also rejected as time-barred. The court emphasized that determining GST amounts fell under the authority of the CGST/OGST Act and declined to intervene, leaving the petitioner to pursue other legal avenues for relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and constitutionality of the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018.
2. Restitution of GST benefits to the petitioner.
3. Validity of the Revised Schedule of Rates (SoR) 2014.
4. Coercive actions against the petitioner for GST recovery.
5. Preparation of a fresh schedule of rates considering the change in rates and prices.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Constitutionality of the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018:
The petitioner challenged the Revised Guidelines issued by the Government of Odisha in Finance Department through Office Memorandum No.38535-FIN-CT1-TAX-0045-2017/F., dated 10.12.2018, questioning its legality, constitutionality, and its alignment with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The petitioner argued that the revised SoR, which excluded the GST component, was arbitrary and unreasonable. However, the court found no merit in the petitioner’s challenge, citing previous judgments, including the case of Harish Chandra Majhi Vrs. State of Odisha, which upheld the legality of the Office Memorandum. The court noted that the memorandum only prescribed the procedure for calculating tax during the transitional period to the GST regime and did not violate any statutory provisions.

2. Restitution of GST Benefits to the Petitioner:
The petitioner sought restitution of GST benefits along with interest for works where estimates were prepared under the VAT law. The court dismissed this claim, stating that the cause of action had become time-barred. The court referred to the agreements provided by the petitioner, which showed completion dates prior to the enforcement of GST statutes. The court also highlighted a similar case, Chandra Sekhar Jena Vrs. State of Odisha, where a claim arising from a pre-GST contract was deemed time-barred.

3. Validity of the Revised Schedule of Rates (SoR) 2014:
The petitioner contended that the revised SoR-2014, which excluded tax components like VAT, Entry Tax, Excise Duty, and Service Tax, was arbitrary and did not reflect actual market rates. The court rejected this argument, stating that the revised SoR was necessary to exclude pre-GST tax components and to include the GST component in the work value. The court emphasized that the revised SoR was prepared based on recommendations from a Code Revision Committee and was applicable uniformly across the state.

4. Coercive Actions Against the Petitioner for GST Recovery:
The petitioner requested the court to restrain the authorities from taking coercive actions to recover GST amounts. The court noted that determining the differential GST and segregating labor and material components is the responsibility of the authority under the CGST/OGST Act. The court declined to interfere in this matter, leaving it to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies through other legal channels.

5. Preparation of a Fresh Schedule of Rates Considering the Change in Rates and Prices:
The petitioner argued for the preparation of a fresh schedule of rates considering the rapidly changing rates and prices. The court dismissed this request, reiterating that the revised SoR-2014 was prepared after due consideration and was necessary to align with the GST regime. The court also noted that any discrepancies in rates could be addressed by submitting the actual rates to the employer, which had no bearing on the GST component.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner’s challenges to the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018, the revised SoR-2014, and the claims for restitution of GST benefits. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s claims were time-barred and that the determination of GST amounts was a matter for the appropriate authorities under the CGST/OGST Act. The court declined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, leaving the petitioner to seek other appropriate remedies.

---