Navrang Infrastructures Inc vs. Commissioner CGST And Another

Held

The Court did not ascertain the correctness of the petitioner's averments on merits. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram, Haryana. The Commissioner is directed to examine the matter in light of the petitioner's representation dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure P-9) and take a final decision in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not examined the petitioner's claim on merits. The ratio decidendi is that when a party has made representations for refund based on a legal precedent, and the court has not examined the merits, the appropriate course is to direct the competent authority to decide the representation expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioner, Navrang Infrastructures Inc., a proprietorship concern engaged in construction activities, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents (Commissioner, CGST & anr.) to release an amount of Rs. 8,70,418/-. This amount was deposited as service tax by the Haryana Housing Board on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner had constructed flats for the Housing Board, which deducted certain amounts from running bills and deposited them as service tax. The petitioner contended that a previous High Court decision established that no service tax is payable on contracts for the construction of BPL houses, making the deposited amount refundable. The petitioner had filed representations and claim petitions regarding this refund.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 8,70,418/- deposited as service tax by the Haryana Housing Board on its behalf, considering the High Court's view that no service tax is payable on the construction of BPL houses? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that based on a prior High Court ruling, the service tax deposited by the Haryana Housing Board on their behalf for the construction of BPL houses is not payable and therefore should be refunded. They have filed representations and claim petitions seeking this refund. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondents. The Court proceeded to dispose of the petition based on the petitioner's request for expeditious decision on their representations.