Contractual tax-adjustment clauses and Section 64A require reconsideration of reimbursement claims after a GST regime change.

Contractual tax-adjustment clauses may require reconsideration where a levy changes after execution of the agreement. The Court noted that the contracts contained provisions for tax inclusion and price adjustment, and that the shift from VAT to GST, together with Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, called for examination of the petitioner's reimbursement claim in light of the contract, the GST enactments and the government order relied upon. The respondents were directed to consider the representations after notice and an opportunity to substantiate the claim. No finding was recorded on the merits of entitlement to reimbursement or price adjustment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were required to consider the petitioner's claim for reimbursement and price adjustment arising from the shift in tax regime under the contract.

Analysis: The agreements contained clauses dealing with tax inclusion and price adjustment if taxes or levies changed during the contract period. The contracts were entered into when the State VAT regime was in force, but the GST regime later came into effect. The Court noted that Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 deals with situations where tax incidence changes after the making of a contract and permits corresponding addition to or deduction from the contract price, unless a different intention appears from the contract. On that basis, the Court considered it appropriate that the respondents examine the petitioner's representations and the supporting material in the light of the contractual clauses, the GST enactments, the government order relied upon, and Section 64A.

Conclusion: The respondents were directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representations after giving notice and an opportunity to substantiate the claim. No finding was recorded on the merits of the reimbursement claim.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions ended with a direction for administrative reconsideration of the petitioner's claim, while the substantive entitlement remained undecided.

---