1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(T) No. 989 of 2022

With

W.P.(T) No. 990 of 2022

Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Ltd. (known as

‘Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd.’), through its

Authorized Signatory-cum-Chief Divisional Manager (Legal).

..… Petitioner (in both cases)

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Urban

Development and Housing, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at

Jharkhand

Mantralaya,

Project

Building, Dhurwa,

P.O.Dhurwa,

P.S.Jagnnathpur, District-Ranchi.

2. Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Ltd., a

Government of Jharkhand Undertaking, through its Chief Managing

Director, having its office at 3^rd Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Road,

P.O.-G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

3. Project Director (Technical) Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure

Development Company Ltd., having its office at 3^rd Floor, Pragati Sadan,

Kutchery Road, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

4. Project Director (Finance)-cum-Company Secretary, Jharkhand Urban

Infrastructure Development Company Ltd., having its office at 3^rd Floor,

Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Road, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

5. General Manager (Works & Planning), Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure

Development Company Ltd., having its office at 3^rd Floor, Pragati Sadan,

Kutchery Road, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

..… Respondents (in both cases)

---------

CORAM :

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner

: M/s., Sumeet Gadodia, &

Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocates

[in both cases]

For the Resp.-State

: Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II

Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II

For the Resp. Nos 2 to 5

: Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv.

Md. Asghar, Adv.

---------

06/25.01.2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The instant matter relates to claim of differential rate of GST

after coming into force of the GST regime upon subsisting contracts as

on 1^st July, 2017 which claim has been rejected by the impugned letters

bearing No. 5630 dated 11^th December, 2019 (Annexure-13) and

Annexure-15 in the respective writ petitions issued by the respondent

No.2. Petitioner also sought a direction upon respondent No.2 to

reimburse the amount of GST leviable upon the petitioner @ 12% after

2

adjusting the tax benefit of Pre-GST regime which according to him is

already embedded in the contract value in respect of the work awarded to

the petitioner vide agreements dated 28.02.2017 “construction of

NavJivan (Kust) Ashram Dev Nagar, Jamshedpur,” and the agreement of

the same day pertaining to “Chakulia Urban Water Supply Scheme”.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause 45 of

the agreement which inter-alia stipulates as under:-

“45. Tax

45.1. The rates quoted by the Contractor shall be deemed to be

inclusive of the sales and other Taxes (except those items which

are mentioned in clause no.11 of sec.5 of Bid document) that the

Contractor will have to pay for the performance of this Contract.

The Employee will perform such duties in regard to the deduction

of such taxes at source as per applicable law.

45.2 In items in which there is provision of Tax exemption by State

govt/GOI, the employer will pay the contractor total amount

including the tax (except those items which are mentioned in

clause no.11 of sec.5 of Bid document). The contractor shall have

to deposit the amount of Tax exemption availed in Govt. Treasury

and the contractor will be solely responsible for any lapses in Tax

deposit.

45.3 Service tax has not been considered in this bill of quantity,

the same will be reimbursed to the contractor as per prevailing

Govt. circular on production of proof of payment b