M/S. Abhiram Infra Projects PVT. LTD vs. Chief Engineer

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, directed the first and second respondents (Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer of TWAD Board) to consider the petitioner's multiple representations. These representations, spanning from May 3, 2019, to January 30, 2023, sought reimbursement of GST and interest. The consideration was to be undertaken in light of G.O.Ms.No.296 dated October 9, 2017, issued by the Finance Department. The Court mandated that this exercise of considering the representations be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must consider representations made by parties, especially when supported by relevant government orders, within a reasonable timeframe. The operative direction was to consider the representations and complete the exercise within eight weeks.

Facts

M/s. Abhiram Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents, the Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Water Supplies and Drainage Board (TWAD Board), and the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, to consider its representations and reimburse Goods and Services Tax (GST) along with interest. The petitioner, a registered contractor with the TWAD Board, had executed contracts prior to the introduction of GST. While GST was applicable to work contracts post-introduction via G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 09.10.2017, the petitioner argued that for contracts executed before GST, the TWAD Board should bear the GST liability and reimburse the petitioner, who would then remit it. The petitioner submitted multiple representations between May 2019 and January 2023 seeking this reimbursement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents, specifically the TWAD Board authorities, are obligated to consider the petitioner's representations seeking reimbursement of GST and interest for contracts executed prior to the introduction of GST, in light of G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 09.10.2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that for contracts executed before the introduction of GST, the TWAD Board ought to pay the GST amount to the petitioner, who would then remit it to the revenue. They relied on G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 09.10.2017, which made GST applicable to work contracts, to support their claim for reimbursement for pre-GST contracts. The petitioner sought reimbursement of the GST payable along with applicable interest under Section 50 of the CGST and TNGST Acts, 2017. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the revenue or state respondents regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim for reimbursement or the applicability of the G.O. to pre-GST contracts. The focus of the court's decision was on directing the consideration of the representations.