In the instant case, three components of the tax, i.e., subject of tax, person liable to pay the tax and rate of tax has been clearly defined in the statute. Consequently, the Court finds no merit in the Petitioner’s challenge to the said OM in law.
Work Contract under GST— The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 61 and office Memorandum dated 10th December, 2018 of the Finance Department prescribing guidelines for the implementation of GST in works contract in post-GST regime with effect from 1st July, 2017. The Petitioner submitted that the Tender Call Notice for all those works were issued in pre-GST period and the estimated value of contracts were arrived basing on pre-revised SoR-2014 when Odisha Value Added Tax Act was in operation. Such rates mentioned in SoR-2014 (pre-revised) were inclusive of VAT. After implementation of GST, revised SoR-2014 was issued with effect from 1st July, 2017 wherein the rates prescribed are exclusive of tax components. As a result the estimated value of contract was reduced. The GST component with applicable rate was required to be added over the contract value. The court observed that the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition after receipt of a notice of demand of recovery of excess payment. The notice has been issued under Section 61 of the Act and the order passed pursuant thereto is appealable under the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same.