Court Dismisses Challenge to GST Action, Denies Restitution, Upholds Office Memorandum; Fresh Schedule Request Rejected

The Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition challenging the action under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, citing consistency with a previous judgment. The request for restitution of GST benefit and interest for work estimated under VAT was also dismissed based on lack of new compelling grounds. The challenge to the legality of the Office memorandum was rejected, maintaining the stance from the previous judgment. The Court did not address the challenge to the Notice under Annexure-3 as it was no longer pressed. Additionally, the plea for direction to prepare a fresh schedule of rates and calculate GST differentials was dismissed, leading to the overall dismissal of the petition without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the action and decision of the Opposite Parties under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
2. Restitution of GST benefit to the Petitioner along with interest for work estimated under the VAT law.
3. Legality of the Office memorandum dated 10.12.2018.
4. Challenge to the Notice under Annexure-3.
5. Direction to prepare a fresh schedule of rates and calculate the differential amount of GST on contracts estimated under VAT.

Analysis:

1. The Petitioner challenged the action and decision of the Opposite Parties under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, alleging it to be illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of their legal rights. The Court noted that similar grounds were addressed in a previous judgment (Harish Chandra Majhi) where the Court had dealt with comparable issues. The Petitioner tried to distinguish the present case by highlighting differences between the notifications of the Government of India and the Government of Orissa. However, the Court found no new grounds compelling enough to revisit the previous judgment. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition, citing the reasons stated in the earlier judgment.

2. The Petitioner sought restitution of the GST benefit with interest for work estimated under the VAT law. However, the Court, after comparing the current petition with the previous judgment in Harish Chandra Majhi, found no significant new grounds that warranted a different outcome. As a result, the Court dismissed this prayer along with the petition, maintaining consistency with the previous decision.

3. The legality of the Office memorandum dated 10.12.2018 was also challenged by the Petitioner. Despite the arguments put forth by the Petitioner's counsel, the Court reiterated its stance from the previous judgment and declined to interfere with the impugned petition. The Court found no compelling reasons to reconsider the matter and dismissed the petition accordingly.

4. The Petitioner had initially challenged the Notice under Annexure-3, but later informed the Court that the notice had been responded to. Consequently, this specific prayer was not pressed further by the Petitioner during the proceedings, and the Court did not delve into the details of this issue.

5. Lastly, the Petitioner sought a direction for the Opposite Party to prepare a fresh schedule of rates and calculate the differential amount of GST on contracts estimated under VAT. However, given the Court's analysis of the previous judgment and the lack of new grounds in the present petition, this prayer was also dismissed along with the entire petition. The Court concluded the judgment by dismissing the petition without any order as to costs, maintaining the consistency of its decisions in similar matters.

---