Kamalpura Construction Co. PVT. LTD. Through Its Managing Director Sri Nath Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 5, the Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, to consider and decide the petitioner's case in terms of the judgment and order dated 05.07.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1452 of 2019 (M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors.). The Court explicitly clarified that all issues of fact and law were left open for determination by the said authority. The Court expressed hope and expectation that the decision would be made expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the order. The ratio decidendi is that when a case is demonstrably covered by a previous High Court judgment, the appropriate authority should consider it in light of that precedent, leaving factual and legal intricacies open for their determination.

Facts

The petitioner, Kamalpura Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to refund the Goods and Services Tax (GST) deposited by them on various running account bills. These bills pertained to work undertaken for the construction of Rajkiya Ambedkar Kalyan Balak Chatrrawas at Thakkarbappa, Muzaffarpur, pursuant to an agreement dated 21.11.2017. The petitioner contended that their case was squarely covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1452 of 2019, titled M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors., and analogous cases. The State respondents had no objection to the matter being remanded to the appropriate authority for consideration on its merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of GST deposited on running account bills for the construction work undertaken, in light of the judgment in M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 1452 of 2019)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their case is directly covered by the aforementioned judgment and therefore, they are entitled to the refund of GST. They relied on the principles laid down in the cited case. Revenue/State's Contention: The State respondents indicated they had no objection to the matter being remanded to the appropriate authority for consideration of the petitioner's case on its own merits, in accordance with the law and the referred decision. No specific arguments were presented by the revenue/state beyond this submission.