GST reimbursement claim for works contract dismissed as time-barred and outside writ jurisdiction

The Orissa HC dismissed a writ petition seeking GST reimbursement from government authorities for a works contract. The petitioner's claim was barred by limitation as the contract dated April 26, 2016 had an 11-month completion period, making any current claim time-barred. Following precedent in Chandra Sekhar Jena v. State of Odisha, the court held that determining GST liability falls within the domain of GST authorities, not writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court declined to calculate GST components case-by-case, directing the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Propriety of Revised Guidelines relating to works contract issued by the Government of Odisha.
2. Legality and constitutionality of the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018.
3. Restitution of GST benefit to the petitioner.
4. Preparation of a fresh schedule of rates considering the change in rates and prices.
5. Coercive actions against the petitioner regarding GST recovery.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Propriety of Revised Guidelines relating to works contract issued by the Government of Odisha:
The petitioner challenged the Revised Guidelines issued by the Government of Odisha in Finance Department through Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018. The guidelines required that incomplete or balance work be estimated by excluding the GST component as per the Revised Schedule of Rates, 2014 (SoR, 2014). The petitioner argued that the guidelines were arbitrary and increased the liability under the GST regime.

2. Legality and constitutionality of the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018:
The petitioner sought to declare the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The Court referenced previous judgments, including the case of Harish Chandra Majhi Vrs. State of Odisha, where the validity of the Office Memorandum was upheld. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge, noting that the guidelines were a procedural measure for calculating tax during the transition to the GST regime.

3. Restitution of GST benefit to the petitioner:
The petitioner requested the restitution of the GST benefit along with interest for work estimated under VAT law. The Court observed that the claim was time-barred, as the agreements were completed in 2017. The Court referenced the case of Chandra Sekhar Jena Vrs. State of Odisha, where similar claims were dismissed due to the statute of limitations.

4. Preparation of a fresh schedule of rates considering the change in rates and prices:
The petitioner argued that the revised SoR-2014 was arbitrary and requested a fresh schedule of rates. The Court found that the revised SoR-2014 was prepared to exclude pre-GST tax components and was applicable uniformly across the state. The Court did not find the petitioner's contention convincing, as the revised rates accounted for the changed tax amount only.

5. Coercive actions against the petitioner regarding GST recovery:
The petitioner sought to restrain the authorities from taking coercive steps to recover the GST amount. The Court stated that determining the quantum of GST liability is within the authority vested by the CGST/OGST Act and not within the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court declined to undertake this exercise, leaving it to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies through other legal avenues.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed on grounds of being time-barred and lacking merit. The Court upheld the validity of the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018 and declined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was advised to seek other appropriate remedies available in accordance with the law.

---