Air Wing Engineering, Thr. Its Sole Proprietor Mohanchandra Muralidhar Samant vs. State Of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Goa And 8 Ors.

Held

The Court accepted the submissions made by the Government Advocate on behalf of the State of Goa. Regarding the work at the Vasco Court building, the Court directed the Registry to permit the contractor, Air Wing Engineering, to withdraw the sum of Rs. 1,16,302.00. This amount was acknowledged as payable to the contractor, representing the calculated GST difference. Concurrently, the Court directed the Registry to ensure the refund of the balance amount of Rs. 1,33,698.00 to the Government of Goa within one week. For the work at the Margao Courts, the Court noted that the contractor had already withdrawn Rs. 2,32,984.00. The Court directed that the remaining balance of Rs. 17,016.00 be permitted to be withdrawn by the State Government, as it was determined to belong to the State. The Court ordered compliance with these directions within one week. Consequently, Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 183 of 2025 was disposed of.

Facts

This matter concerns Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 183 of 2025, arising from Public Interest Litigation (Suo Motu) No. 2 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The applicant, Air Wing Engineering, through its sole proprietor Mohanchandra Muralidhar Samant, sought relief concerning GST calculations on two works contracts. The State of Goa was the respondent. The court was presented with a calculation of a GST difference of an additional 10% on Items Nos. 1 and 2. For the first work, involving air conditioners in the Vasco Court building, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 had been deposited in court. The Government Advocate stated that Rs. 1,16,302.00 was payable to the contractor, and the remaining Rs. 1,33,698.00 was to be refunded to the Government of Goa.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractor, Air Wing Engineering, is entitled to withdraw Rs. 1,16,302.00 from the amount deposited in court, representing the GST difference for the supply, installation, testing, and commissioning of air conditioners in the Vasco Court building? 2. Whether the balance amount of Rs. 1,33,698.00, from the deposit for the Vasco Court building work, should be refunded to the Government of Goa? 3. Whether the balance amount of Rs. 17,016.00, pertaining to the work of supply, installation, testing, and commissioning of tower and speed air conditioners in the Margao Courts, should be permitted to be withdrawn by the State Government? Arguments: Petitioner (Air Wing Engineering): The contractor is entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,16,302.00 due to a GST difference, having been levied 18% GST instead of 28% GST on the Vasco Court building work. They sought permission to withdraw this amount from the court deposit. Revenue (State of Goa): The Government Advocate agreed with the contractor's calculation for the Vasco Court building work, stating that Rs. 1,16,302.00 was payable to the contractor and the balance of Rs. 1,33,698.00 should be refunded to the State. For the Margao Court work, the contractor had already withdrawn Rs. 2,32,984.00, and the remaining Rs. 17,016.00 belonged to the State and should be withdrawn by them.