Orissa High Court
M/S. Mahavir Infra Developers Pvt vs State Of Odisha And Others on 24 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.5544 of 2021
M/s. Mahavir Infra Developers Pvt. .... Petitioner
Ltd.
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 five prayers in the present petition, which read as
under:
"i. why the action and decision of the Opp.parties shall
not be declared illegal, unconstitutional and violative of
the guideline issued by Govt. of India on account of the
implementation of GST w.r.t. Taxes being shared and
borne by the petitioner on post enactment goods and
Service Tax Act, 2017, thereby infringing the Goods and
Service Tax, 2017.
ii. 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 estimate was prepared under the VAT law.
iii. the impugned part of the Office memorandum dated
10.12.2018 under Annexure-1 shall not be declared
illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and same shall not be
quashed and/or modified.
iv. the draconian action of GST department imposing
huge demands w.r.t pre GST tenders/contracts shall not
be declared illegal, arbitrary and same shall not be
quashed.
v. why the Opp.party shall not be directed to prepare a
fresh schedule of rates (SOR) making it GST
compliant."
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
