IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN st ON THE 21 OF MARCH, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 6358 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

NISHIT KUMAR JAIN S/O HEMENDRA KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONTRACTOR WARD NO 32 HARDA DISTT. HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI AYUR JAIN - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. MADHYA PRADESH WAREHOUSING LOGISTIC CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR GAUTAM NAGAR BHOPAL (M.P.)

(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. CHIEF ENGINEER MADHYA PRADESH WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTIC CORPORATION GAUTAM NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI REJI MATHAI - PANEL LAWYER)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the Annexure P/1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was awarded a construction contract by the respondent- Corporation on 01.12.2015 and the work under the said works contract continued post 01.07.2017 which was the date when the GST Act came into force. The grievance of the petitioner is that deduction was made from his bills on account of GST Act which came into force on 01.07.2017and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR he should not be liable for such taxation which came into force after submission of his bids.

2. This court earlier had directed the respondents to take a decision in the matter by order dated 11.10.2023 passed in W.P. No. 25230/2023. Now the respondents have taken a decision and have intimated the petitioner that he had submitted an affidavit that after GST Act came into force in 2017 he would not claim any balance amount on accou7ntof change of taxation.

3. Various questions are required to be decided in the matter i.e. whether the petitioner actually submitted the said affidavit, what is the change of incident of taxation on the contract in question and what is the quantum of such change. All such issues are realm of facts. The petitioner can a avail remedy under M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. Section 2(d) reads as under:-

"2(d) “dispute’ means claim of ascertained or ascertainable money valued at Rupees 50,000 or more relating to any difference arising out of the execution or non-execution of a works contract or part thereof;"

4. The contract in question is certainly a work contract in terms of Section 2(i) which is as under:-

"2(i) “works-contract” means an agreement in writing or a letter of intent or work order issued for the execution of any work relating to construction, repair or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory, work-shop, powerhouse, transformer or such other works of the State Government or Public Undertakings or of the Corporations of the State as the State Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf at any of its stages, entered into by the State Government or by an official of the State Government or by Public Undertakings or Corporation or by any official of the State Government for and on behalf of such Corporation or Public Undertakings and includes an agreement for supply of goods or material and all other matters relating to the execution of any of the said works and also includes the services so hired for carrying out the aforesaid works and shall also include all concession agreement, so entered into by the State Government or public undertakings or Corporation, wherein a State support is involved or not.”

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR [The agreements in writing for the execution of the work relating to construction, repair or maintenance of electric lines, water supply and sewerage/drainage system shall also be “works contract”

5 The dispute is referable to the Tribunal under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. Consequently, the interference is declined on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Act of 1983. The petitioner is set at liberty to avail the said liberty and rais