Pratap Chandra Parida vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12131 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   W.P.(C) No.8494 of 2021

            Pratap Chandra Parida                     ....              Petitioner
                                                 Ms. K. R. Choudhury, Advocate
                                          -versus-
            State of Odisha and others                ....       Opposite Parties
                                                     Mr. P. K. Muduli, AGA and
                      Mr. Sunil Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel for Revenue
                                                                     Department

                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE A. K. MOHAPATRA

                                          ORDER

24.11.2021 Order No.

02. 1. There are three prayers in the present petition, which read as under:

"i. why action/inaction of the O.P. shall not be declared arbitrary & illegal and the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to restitute the benefit of GST to the petitioner along with interest within a stipulated period in respect of work in which the estimated was prepared under the VAT Law.

ii. the Office memorandum dated 10.12.2018 under Annexure-2 shall not be declared illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and same shall not be quashed.

iii. the Opp.party shall not be directed to prepare a fresh schedule of rates and guidelines making it GST Compliant.xxx"

2. It is pointed out at the outset by Mr. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State that all these prayers have been answered against the Petitioner by the judgment dated 7th June, 2021 of this Court W.P.(C) No.14924 of 2020 (Harish Chandra

Majhi and State of Orissa and others). However, Ms. Roy Choudhury seeks to distinguish the said judgment on the ground that the points raised in the present petition were not considered therein. She has produced a chart seeking to draw a distinction between the Government of India notification and the impugned notification of the Government of Orissa, her submission is that the impugned notification is not consistent with the Government of India notification in many respects. She has also made a point about the embedded taxes which was subsumed in the value not being excluded while arriving at the base price for the purposes of levy of GST.

3. On perusal of the judgment delivered by this Court in Harish Chandra Majhi (supra), the Court finds that the Court has dealt with a large number of grounds which are more or less similar to the points urged in the present petition. The Court is not satisfied that any new ground has been made out requiring the Court to revisit its judgment in Harish Chandra Majhi (supra). Consequently, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned petition. It is dismissed for the reasons already stated in Harish Chandra Majhi (supra).

4. The petition is accordingly dismissed but, with no order as to costs.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

( A. K. Mohapatra ) Judge M. Panda