M/S M R Constructions vs. Chief Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's grievance was that their representations seeking payment of GST at 18% had not been considered by the respondents. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had rendered the contract work as required by the respondents and was therefore entitled to the consideration of their representation in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent-authorities to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner seeking payment of the enhanced GST at 18%. The respondents were ordered to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the claim for the enhanced GST itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of considering the representations.

Facts

M/s M R Constructions, a Class I contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and its Executive Engineer to pay GST at the enhanced rate of 18% on civil works entrusted to them. The petitioner had completed the works and submitted bills. The respondents were deducting GST at the original rate and withholding the enhanced amount, which was not included in the original estimate. The petitioner argued that the Central Government had enhanced the GST rate from 12% to 18% during the pendency of the civil works. The petitioner had submitted representations seeking payment of the enhanced GST, which the respondents had not considered. The respondents acknowledged that GST at 12% would be paid but stated there were no instructions to consider the petitioner's case for payment at 18%.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the petitioner's claim for payment of GST at the enhanced rate of 18% on civil works, considering the notification by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Affairs? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents have an obligation to consider the GST at 18%, as this rate was enhanced by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Affairs through a notification. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in declining the payment of the enhanced GST. Respondents' Contention: The respondents submitted that while GST at 12% would be paid, there were no specific instructions for considering the petitioner's case for payment of GST at the enhanced rate of 18%.