Petitioner directed to seek reimbursement for tax transition; authority to decide within timeframe.

The court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the appropriate authority regarding the non-reimbursement of the differential tax amount due to the transition from VAT to GST in works contracts. The authority was instructed to consider and dispose of the representation based on revised guidelines within a specified timeframe. The petitioner retained the right to challenge the authority's decision if dissatisfied, with no coercive action allowed until the specified date. The writ petition and related cases were disposed of, and the court permitted the use of the soft copy of the order during the COVID-19 lockdown.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to non-reimbursement of differential tax amount due to change from VAT to GST regime in works contract.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the opposite parties for not reimbursing the differential tax amount resulting from the shift in tax regime from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Service Tax (GST) effective from 01.07.2017. The main issue highlighted was the difficulty faced by contractors due to this transition, especially in works contract under GST. The petitioner contended that the introduction of GST required them to pay taxes that were not initially foreseen when entering into agreements. The Government responded by issuing revised guidelines superseding previous ones, specifying the treatment of works contracts under GST. These guidelines outlined the taxation rates under GST, the exclusion of taxes from previous schedules, the necessity for contractors to raise tax invoices separately showing taxable work value and GST, and the procedure for determining amounts payable to contractors for works done before and after the GST implementation date.

In light of the revised guidelines, the court directed the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation to the appropriate authority within four weeks, detailing their grievances. The authority was instructed to consider and dispose of the representation based on the revised guidelines by a specified date. The petitioner was granted the right to challenge the authority's decision if aggrieved, and no coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until the specified date. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, and all connected cases were also disposed of. Additionally, due to the ongoing COVID-19 lockdown, the court allowed the use of the soft copy of the order available on the High Court's website for reference.

---