GST circular constitutional challenge dismissed as disputed facts require alternative legal remedies not writ jurisdiction

The Orissa HC dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of a circular dated 07.12.2017 regarding GST tax sharing and reimbursement claims. The petitioner sought restitution of benefits with interest and compensation, alleging violation of fundamental rights and infringement of GST Act provisions. The HC held that determining amounts owed between parties involved highly disputed questions of fact regarding GST deductions from bills. The court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for case-by-case GST component calculations, directing the petitioner to pursue other appropriate legal remedies. The petition was dismissed without exercising extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to circular dated 07.12.2017 as ultravires, illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of fundamental rights under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Requirement to show GST component separately in bills for works executed after 01.07.2017.
3. Dispute regarding the burden of additional tax on the petitioner due to GST.
4. Validity of Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018 revising guidelines for works contract post-GST regime.
5. Claim for restitution of GST benefits with interest and compensation.
6. Disputed question of fact regarding reimbursement of GST deducted from bills.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a works contractor, challenged a circular dated 07.12.2017, claiming it was ultravires and violated fundamental rights under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that showing the GST component separately in bills for works executed after 01.07.2017 imposed an additional tax burden. However, the court noted that subsequent guidelines issued on 10.12.2018 revised the procedures, rendering the challenge to the earlier circular moot.

2. The court considered the case of another works contractor challenging the revised guidelines in a similar matter. The petitioner questioned the legality of the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018, which prescribed guidelines for works contracts post-GST regime. The court found that the revised Schedule of Rates and the demand notice issued under the Odisha Goods and Services Act were valid, dismissing the petitioner's contentions.

3. The court addressed the petitioner's claim for restitution of GST benefits with interest and compensation. It analyzed the changes in tax components post-GST implementation, emphasizing the need to calculate the tax amount during the transitional period accurately. The court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge to the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018, as it prescribed the calculation procedure for determining tax amounts during the migration to the GST Act.

4. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity of the Office Memorandum dated 07.12.2017, as subsequent developments had resolved the issues raised. It noted that the disputed question of whether any amount was owed to the petitioner on account of GST deductions had become a factual dispute, best resolved through other legal remedies available to the parties.

5. In a related case, the court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in considering the propriety of the Revised Guidelines under the Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2018. The court found no grounds to intervene through extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, recognizing the complex factual disputes regarding reimbursement of GST deductions and directing the parties to seek appropriate legal remedies for resolution.

---