Jharkhand High Court
M/S Sri Sai Krishna Constructions vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 October, 2022
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Deepak Roshan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(T) No. 2108 of 2019
M/s Sri Sai Krishna Constructions, Hyderabad represented
by its Managing Partner and lawful attorney Smt. G. Prathima
--- --- Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.The Principal Secretary, Water Resource Dept., Ranchi
4.The Engineer-in-chief, Water Resource Dept., Ranchi
5.The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Dept., Ranchi
6.The Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Gumla
7.The Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division, Gumla
8.The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
9.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
10.The Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Prev), Central
GST & CX(H), Ranchi --- --- Respondents
With
W.P (C) No. 1616 of 2019
Royal Infraconstru Limited through its Authorized Signatory
Mr. Sudip Bhoumik, Kolkata --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Jharkhand
3. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division,
Manoharpur, Ghatshila, Jamshedpur --- --- Respondents
With
W.P (T) No. 2192 of 2019
M/s Sri Sai Krishna Constructions, Hyderabad duly represented by its
Managing Partner and lawful attorney Smt. G. Prathima --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. The Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, Ranchi
4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resource Department, Ranchi
5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Ranchi
6. The Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Gumla, Jharkhand
7. The Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division, Gumla --- Respondents
With
W.P (T) No. 2327 of 2019
With
W.P (T) No. 2494 of 2019
With
W.P (T) No. 2560 of 2019
With
W.P (T) No. 2594 of 2019
M/s Harvin Construction Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad through its authorized
Signatory Gunapati Murali Krishna Reddy --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand
2
3. The Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, Ranchi
4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resource Department, Ranchi
5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Ranchi
6. The Superintending Engineer, Subernarekha Canal Division, Ghatshila
7. The Executive Engineer, Subernarekha Canal Division, Ghatshila
8. The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
9. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand
10. The Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Circle, Ranchi
--- --- Respondents
With
W.P (C) No. 390 of 2020
M/s Spica Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd, Ranchi through
its Director Santosh Kumar Singh --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary,
Road Construction Department, Ranchi
2. The Chief Engineer (Communication),
Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Ranchi --- --- Respondents
With
W.P (C) No. 392 of 2020
M/s Spica Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd, Ranchi through
its Director Santosh Kumar Singh --- ---
Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary,
Road Construction Department, Ranchi
2. The Chief Engineer (Communication),
Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Pakur --- --- Respondents
With
W.P (C) No. 410 of 2020
M/s Spica Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd, Ranchi through
its Director Santosh Kumar Singh --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary,
Road Construction Department, Ranchi
2. The Chief Engineer (Communication),
Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Deoghar --- --- Respondents
With
W.P (C) No. 415 of 2020
M/s Spica Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd, Ranchi through
its Director Santosh Kumar Singh --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary,
Road Construction Department, Ranchi
2. The Chief Engineer (Communication),
Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3
3. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Simdega --- --- Respondents
With
W.P (C) No. 417 of 2020
M/s Spica Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd, Ranchi through
its Director Santosh Kumar Singh --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary,
Road Construction Department, Ranchi
2. The Chief Engineer (Communication),
Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Pakur --- --- Respondents
With
W.P (T) No. 1805 of 2020
M/s Bhardwaj Construction Company (P) Ltd., Hazaribagh through its
Director and authorized representative Mr. C.M. Riaz Ahamed --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Ranchi
4. The Dy. Secretary, Water Resource Department, Ranchi
5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Subarnarekha Multi-
purpose Project, Chandil Complex, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
6. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Subarnarekha Multi-
purpose Project, Barrage Division, Galudih, East Singhbhum
7. The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
8. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand
--- --- Respondents
With
W.P (T) No. 1807 of 2020
M/s Sew Infrastructure Ltd., Hyderabad through its Vice President and
Authorized representative Mr. K. Giridhar --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Ranchi
4. The Dy. Secretary, Water Resource Department, Ranchi
5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Subarnarekha Multi-
purpose Project, Chandil Complex, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
6. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Subarnarekha Multi-
purpose Project, Barrage Division, Galudih, East Singhbhum
7. The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
8. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand
--- --- Respondents
With
W.P (T) No. 2714 of 2020
M/s Vijay Kant Pandey, a Partnership Firm, Ranchi through
Its Partner Vijaykant Pandey --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways, New Delhi
4
2. Regional Officer, Jharkhand, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
Ranchi
3. State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary
4. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Ranchi
5. Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department
(National Highways Division), Ranchi
6. Executive Engineer, National Highways Division, Ranchi
7. Secretary, State Tax Department, Ranchi
8. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Palamau Circle, Daltonganj, Palamau
9. State Tax Officer, Palamau Circle, Daltonganj, Palamau --- Respondents
10.
With
W.P (T) No. 3077 of 2020
M/s Pankaj Kumar Singh, a Partnership Fir, Ranchi through its
Partner Pankaj Kumar --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways, New Delhi
2. Regional Officer, Jharkhand, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
Ranchi
3. State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary
4. Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Ranchi
5. Chief Engineer, Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority,
Construction Department, Ranchi
6. Executive Engineer, Rural Road Development (Rural Work Affairs), Work
Division, Ranchi
7. Secretary, State Tax Department, Ranchi
8. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi
9. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Simdega Circle, Simdega -Respondents
10.
With
W.P (T) No. 3802 of 2020
M/s Sidhartha Construction, a Partnership Firm, Ranchi through
Its Partner Vijay Kumar Jha --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Rural Road Development Authority, Ranchi
3. Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Rural Road Development Authority, Ranchi
4. The Executive Engineer, Khunti, Rural Road Department, RWA Works
Division, Khunti
5. The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
6. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand
7. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ranchi South Circle, Ranchi
--- --- Respondents
With
W.P (T) No. 5264 of 2021
With
W.P (T) No. 5265 of 2021
With
W.P (T) No. 5288 of 2021
With
W.P (T) No. 5289 of 2021
Larsen & Toubro Limited, Mumbai through its Power Transmission and
Distribution IC duly represented by Cluster Operations Head and Authorized
Signatory namely Mr. Padmanabha Kumar D --- --- Petitioner
5
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Energy, Ranchi
2. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Ranchi through its
Managing Director
3. Finance Controller, JBVNL, Ranchi
4. Chief Engineer (R.E), JBVNL, Ranchi
5. The General Manager (Rural Project), JBVNL, Ranchi --- Respondents
With
W.P (T) No. 275 of 2022
NNB Engineers Private Limited, Jamshedpur through its Director
Vinay Kumar Singh --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary
2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
4. Chief Engineer (Planning, Monitoring and Aayojan), Water Resources
Department, Govt. of Jharkhan, Ranchi
5. Executive Engineer, Subarnarekha Canal Division, Water Resources
Department, Chandil Complex, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
6. The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
--- --- Respondents
With
W.P.(T) No. 989 of 2022
Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Ltd. (known as Jamshedpur
Utilities & Services Company Ltd.) having its office at Jamshedpur through
Its authorized signatory-cum-Chief Divisional Manager (legal) namely Jai
Pushpit Pallav, R/o Kadma, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
--- --- Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Dept. of Urban Development
& Housing, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2.Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Ltd. through its
Chief Managing Director, Ranchi
3.Project Director (Technical), Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development
Company Ltd., Ranchi
4.Project Director (Finance) cum -Company Secretary, Jharkhand Urban
Infrastructure Development Company Ltd., Ranchi
5.General Manager (Works & Planning), Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure
Development Company Ltd., Ranchi --- --- Respondents
With
W.P.(T) No. 990 of 2022
Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Ltd. (formerly Jamshedpur
Utilities & Services Company Ltd.) having its office at Jamshedpur through
Its authorized signatory-cum-Chief Divisional Manager (legal) namely Jai
Pushpit Pallav, R/o Kadma, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
--- --- Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Urban Development
& Housing Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2.Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Ltd. through its Chief
Managing Director, Ranchi
3.Project Director (Technical), Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development
Company Ltd., Ranchi
4.Project Director (Finance) cum -Company Secretary, Jharkhand Urban
6
Infrastructure Development Company Ltd., Ranchi
5.General Manager (Works & Planning), Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure
Development Company Ltd., Ranchi --- --- Respondents
with
W.P (T) No. 1242 of 2022
M/s Singh Electricals and Constructions, a Partnership Firm,
through one of its Partner Mr. Mani Bhushan Singh --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand
4. The Executive Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department,
Ranchi East, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
5. The Superintendent Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department,
Ranchi Circle, Ranchi Govt. of Jharkhand --- --- Respondents
with
W.P (T) No. 3975 of 2022
Classic Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi through its Director Mukesh Kumar
--- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
2. Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
4. Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
5. Chief Engineer, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
6. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle,
Hazaribagh
7. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division,
Ramgarh --- --- Respondents
with
W.P (T) No. 3991 of 2022
Classic Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi through its Director Mukesh Kumar
--- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
2. Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
4. Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
5. Chief Engineer, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
6. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle,
Ranchi
7. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Ranchi (Rural), Ranchi --- --- Respondents
with
W.P (T) No. 3992 of 2022
Classic Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi through its Director Mukesh Kumar
--- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
2. Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
4. Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
5. Chief Engineer, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
7
6. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Circle, Ramgarh
7. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Ramgarh --- --- Respondents
with
W.P (T) No. 3993 of 2022
Classic Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi through its Director Mukesh Kumar
--- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
2. Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
4. Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
5. Chief Engineer, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
6. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Circle, Hazaribagh
7. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Ramgarh --- --- Respondents
with
W.P (T) No. 3994 of 2022
Classic Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi through its Director Mukesh Kumar
--- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
2. Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
4. Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
5. Chief Engineer, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
6. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Circle, Hazaribagh
7. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Hazaribagh --- --- Respondents
with
W.P (T) No. 3995 of 2022
Classic Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi through its Director Mukesh Kumar
--- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
2. Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
4. Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
5. Chief Engineer, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
6. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Circle, Hazaribagh
7. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Ramgarh --- --- Respondents
with
W.P (T) No. 3996 of 2022
Classic Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi through its Director Mukesh Kumar
--- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary
2. Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
4. Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
5. Chief Engineer, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand
8
6. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Circle, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
7. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Seraikella, West Singhbhum
-- ---Respondents
With
W.P.(T) No. 3997 of 2022
Classic Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi through its Director, Mukesh Kumar,
R/o Kokar, Ranchi --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi, Jharkhand
2.Secretary, Dept. of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.Secretary, Dept. of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4.Engineer-in-Chief, Dept. of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
5.Chief Engineer, Dept. of Road Construction, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
6.Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Dept., Road Circle, Hazaribag
7.Executive Engineer, Road Construction Dept., Road Division, Ramgarh
--- --- Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioners: : M/s Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Nitin Kumar Pasari and Sidhi Jalan, Advocates [W,P(T) Nos. 5264 of 2021, 5265/2021, 5288 of 2021 & 5289 of 2021] : M/s. Deepak Sinha, Vikas Pandey, Rakhi Sharma, Adv. [W.P.(T) No. 1616/2019, 3802/2020] : M/s. Ritesh Kumar, Kumar Vaibhaw [W.P.(T) No. 3077/2020] : M/s. Sumeet Gadodia, Aakansha Mittal, Surbhi Agarwal, Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocates [In W.P.(T) Nos. 2714/2020, 275/2020, 989/2022, 990/2022] : M/s Rajesh Kumar, Amit Kumar, M.K. Sinha, Advocate [W.P.(T) No. 2108/2019, 2192/2019, 2327/2019, 2494/2019, 2560/2019, 2594/2019] : M/s Indrajit Sinha, Kumar Vaibhav, Advocates [W.P.(T) No.390/2020,392/2020,410/2020,415/2020 & 417/2020, 3975/2022, 3991/2022,3992/2022,3993/2022, 3994/2022, 3995/2022, 3996/2022, 3997/2022] : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate [WPT No.1242 /2022] For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I, & Rituraj, A.C to Sr. S.C.-I [in W.P.(T) Nos. 2108/2019, 415/2020, 5289/2021, 275/2022, 1242/2022,3992/2022,3994/2022,3995/2022, 3996/2022] : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G-II & Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C to A.A.G-II [ in W.P(T) Nos. 2494/2019, 417/2020, 3975/2022, 3991/2022,3993/2022, 3997/2022] : M/s Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II, [in W.P.(T) Nos. 5264/2021, 5265/2021, 5288/2021, 989/2022, 990/2022] : Mr. Laxman Kumar, CGC [WPT 2714/2020] 9 For the Respondent-JUIDCO : Mr. Krishna Murari, Md. Ashgar, Advocates [W.P.(T) No. 989/2022 ,W.P.(T) No. 990/2022)] For the Respondent-JSRRDA : M/s Dr. A.K.Singh, Madhu Priya, Advocates [W.P.(T) No. 3802 of 2020] 13/12.10.2022 Surviving defects pointed out in W.P. (T) No. 2594 of 2019;
W.P(T) No. 392 of 2020 and W.P.(T) No. 2714 of 2020 are ignored. All these writ petitions raise common issues. For easy reference, the order dated 16.03.2021, which encapsulates the issues involved in the present writ petitions concerning implementation of GST regime on subsisting works contract is extracted hereunder:
'In all these writ petitions common issues are involved. These writ petitions relate to subsisting work contracts on the date of implementation of the GST regime i.e. 1st July 2017. As per the case of the petitioners, GST regime introduced a higher rate of tax which the petitioners are forced to carry the burden without appropriate mechanism laid down by the State to ensure proper implementation of the Goods and Services Tax regime on ongoing works contract w.e.f. 1st July 2017. Petitioners contend that works contract in their individual cases contained clauses for computation of tax under the VAT regime over the taxable value of the contracts. However, under the GST regime not only the rate of tax has been increased, but is leviable on the taxable value of the works contract as a whole. Petitioners have been compelled to pay the differential tax burden without proper reimbursement. No uniform guidelines have been framed by the State of Jharkhand in this regard. Petitioners contend that guidelines in this regard have been laid down by other State Governments such as the Government of Telangana, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Railways as well as other public sector undertakings. Various orders have also been passed by the different High Courts such as the High Court of Madras and the High Court of Orissa.
Earlier a direction was passed by this Court in W.P.(T) No.5045 of 2018 in the case of M/s Bhardwaj Construction Company (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand upon the respondent State to take a decision on this issue. The decision taken by the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 22nd April 2019 bearing order no.2086, however fails to address the issue in proper manner. Therefore, the petitioners have been compelled to agitate their grievances before this Court.
Counter affidavits have been filed in most of the matters except W.P.(T) No.3802 of 2020.
As indicated herein above, the issue herein is regarding implementation of Goods and Services Tax regime on ongoing works contract on the date of coming into force of the GST Act w.e.f. 1st July 2017.
Learned counsel for the State Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II and other State Counsels pray for and are allowed three weeks' time to undertake deliberations with the concerned departments. The implementation guidelines issued by the different State Governments, PSUs, etc. may be kept into account while arriving at an informed opinion on the issues involved herein.
Learned counsel for the petitioners shall supply a compilation of such Government orders/orders passed by the 10 different PSUs to the Court in hard copy and through email to the Court Master and also to the State Counsel by 19th March 2021 for assistance. These matters be listed on 20th April 2021. Affidavit on behalf of the State, if any, be filed latest by 16th April 2021.
Let W.P.(T) No.2714 of 2020 concerning the same issue be also tagged along with the instant cases.'
2. Later during course of the proceeding it appeared to the Court that a standard operating procedure (SOP) is required to be framed for implementation of the guidelines framed by the MoRTH through letter dated 19.12.2018 and consequential letter dated 14.07.2021 issued by the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand bearing letter no. 1421. Therefore, on 04.05.2022 following order was passed:
"Reference may be made to the order dated 14.12.2021 in the batch of writ petitions led by W.P (T) No. 2108/2019 and certain other cases which have been tagged later on wherein also, by order dated 15.02.2022, Respondents were asked to file counter affidavit. However, no counter affidavit has been filed except in W.P (T) No. 2714/2020 after the previous order, though that affidavit is not in the context of the order dated 14.12.2021.
2. Grievance of the individual petitioners relates to the different departments, but the issue is common i.e. reimbursement of differential tax on GST paid by the petitioners in subsisting contracts or contracts executed even after 01.07.2017 upon implementation of GST regime. The order dated 14.12.2021 refers to the SOP framed by the MoRTH through letter dated 19.12.2018 by which a mechanism was framed and also letter dated 14.07.2021 issued by the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, 4. Government of Jharkhand bearing letter no. 1421. However, it appears that the problem lies in its implementation only. It also shows that different departments need to implement the SOP in uniform manner so that grievances of the petitioners concerning different departments are redressed on uniform principles. It appears that lack of coordination amongst different departments of the State may be one of the reasons for not giving concerted response to the order dated 14.12.2021. We therefore, feel that the matter be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand so that the issue at hand may be addressed through a nodal department and guidelines for its implementation within a timeframe may be laid down.
3. Learned A.A.G-II Mr. Sachin Kumar and other State counsels are at a loss for not been able to file the affidavit in the respective writ petition pursuant to the order dated 14.12.2021. Learned State counsels pray for further two weeks' time.
4. However, while adjourning the matters for four weeks, we request the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand to look into the matter and see that proper guidelines are laid down for addressing this issue in a time bound manner concerning different persons / petitioners.
5. List these cases in the second week after reopening of summer vacation 2022.
Let the order dated 14.12.2021 and the instant order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand through FAX and e-mail."
113. The Chief Secretary was directed to look into the matter and see that proper guidelines are laid down for addressing this issue in a time bound manner concerning different persons / petitioners. The Chief Secretary, Jharkhand held meetings with the Head of the concerned Department. Workshop were also organized so that technical officers of the works departments are sensitized with the issue as well as the SOP. Pursuant to the exercise undertaken by the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand with other works department, an SOP was framed. The notification of the SOP dated 26.08.2022 has been brought on record through a supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Special Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department on 02.09.2022 in W.P (T) No. 2108 of 2019. The same has also been served to the other writ petitioners. The claim of reimbursement of GST on the differential taxes are still lying with the concerned Works Department of the State Government or other State Instrumentalities such as Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, etc. In two of these writ petitions such as W.P (T) No. 989/2022 and W.P (T) No. 990/2022, claim has already been rejected.
4. The SOP is not under challenge in these batch of writ petitions. However, learned counsel for the petitioners have tried to show some lacunae in the clauses of SOP. The SOP or directive was framed for post GST payment on pending bills related to the works orders issued during the pre-GST regime. The SOP lays down a mechanism by which individual grievances of persons / petitioners could be addressed by the competent authorities of the concerned Works Department or other State Instrumentalities. The recital of SOP dated 26.08.2022 is extracted hereunder:
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION 26th August, 2022 Sub: Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)/Directive for post- GST payments of pending bills related to work orders issued during pre-GST period.
S.O. No. 33 Dated 26 August, 2022-The matter relates to the Works Contract awarded by the State Government departments/ local authorities in the pre GST period and payments and execution of those Works Contract Services (partly or wholly) is to be made in the post GST period i.e. from 1.07.2017.
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) has come into force st w.e.f 1 July 2017 by subsuming various indirect taxes such as Central excise duty, Service tax VAT, CST, Entry tax, etc. Subsequent to the enactment of GST Act w.e.f. 01.07.2017, different work departments of State Government have sought clarifications on modalities of treatment of pending bills of different contractors where in the contract was awarded in pre-12
GST regime, i.e., VAT regime and the works has completed partly/wholly after the implementation of GST. Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has directed the Government of Jharkhand to issue guidelines on this matter in its order dated 16-03-2021 in WP (T)-2108/2019.
The main issue under consideration is for the payment of pending bills related to work order issued during pre GST period and supply of Works Contract services is executed under GST regime which is discussed as below;-
5. Learned counsel for Respondents submits that now since the SOP has been framed, individual petitioners may be asked to approach the competent authorities under the Respondent Department in respect of their grievances relating to reimbursement of GST paid on differential rate of taxes. Since the SOP is not under challenge in these batch of writ petitions, any observations on its clauses would be uncalled for at this stage. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of any of their claim, they may have fresh cause of action to agitate including any terms of SOP which adversely affect them.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in that case, writ petitions may be disposed of with a direction upon the competent authorities of the concerned Department / State Instrumentalities to take a decision on the claim of the individual petitioners within a strict time frame as this issue has been hanging for long.
7. Issues involved in these batch of writ petitions have been referred to in brief in the earlier part of this order. It was at the instance of this Court that the State Government thought it proper to lay down a mechanism through Standard Operating Procedure to deal with the individual cases of aggrieved persons / petitioners regarding reimbursement of differential amount of GST paid by them under the subsisting contract as on 01.07.2017. Now, that the SOP has been framed and published in the Extraordinary Gazette dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure- B to the supplementary counter affidavit of the Respondent Commercial Taxes Department dated 02.09.2022 filed in W.P.(T) No. 2108 of 2019) and that the grievances of the petitioners are still at the level of individual department or State Instrumentalities, this Court is not required to make any comments on the terms and clauses of the SOP at this stage. Petitioners should press their claim before the concerned departments or State Instrumentalities or make a fresh claim so that the competent authorities under the Respondents can take an informed decision on the claim of the individual petitioners' in accordance with 13 law and the SOP framed vide Notification dated 26.08.2022 within a time frame. Needless to say, if pursuant to the said decision, any individual petitioner or person feels aggrieved, it may give rise to a fresh cause of action to be raised in an appropriate proceeding. It would also be open for the petitioners to lay a challenge to any of the clause of SOP if so aggrieved thereby. Since the claim of the petitioners have been pending for quite long on the implementation of GST regime since 01.07.2017, it would be in the fitness of things that the representation or claim of the individual petitioners be decided in an expeditious manner, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In some of the writ petitions, earlier a stand has been taken by the Respondents as to the correctness of the claim raised by the individual petitioners, the same will not come into the way of the Respondents in taking a fresh decision after application of the guidelines and terms framed under the fresh SOP dated 26.08.2022.
8. Let W.P (T) Nos. 989/2022 and 990/2022 be de-tagged from the instant batch of writ petitions and be listed separately after one week.
9. Rest of the writ petitions are disposed of. Needless to say, this Court has not made any comment on the case of the individual petitioners. All the pending I.A.s are closed.
The typing error in the date of the previous order number 12 should be read as 27.09.2022 in place of 27.06.2022.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) A.Mohanty