M/S Kunal Bsbk Joint Venture PVT LTD. vs. Commissioner

Held

The High Court held that the scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record or overlooked material facts. It found no such error or ground warranting interference in the review petition. The Court noted that the grounds urged by the petitioner essentially sought re-appreciation of facts and re-argument on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. The Court reiterated its earlier finding that the dispute was contractual in nature, and the petitioner could have recourse to a competent civil court or arbitration proceedings as provided in the contract. The dismissal of the writ petition was primarily on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, and the petitioner had not established any prejudice from not exhausting such remedies. Therefore, no case for interference in review was made out.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Kunal BSBK Joint Venture Pvt Ltd., filed a review petition seeking to recall an order dated August 11, 2025, passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The original writ petition (WP(C) No. 6197 of 2024) had sought a writ of mandamus to quash orders dated December 21, 2017, and May 2, 2024, passed by the Respondent, Chhattisgarh Housing Board. The Petitioner also sought directions for the release of GST amounting to ₹9,18,32,861/- along with interest. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition, holding it to be devoid of merit and not maintainable. The review petitioner argued that the dismissal order contained an error apparent on the face of the record.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition, overlooking the settled proposition of law that rejection of the petitioner's claim for GST reimbursement, when similarly placed contractors with other State Government bodies were reimbursed, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the High Court erred in concluding that there exists a dispute regarding the interpretation of contractual clauses warranting arbitration, thereby dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy? Petitioner's Arguments: - The Respondent misled the court by incorrectly stating that the GST refund request was rejected on December 21, 2017, and that this order was not placed on record; the order and disagreement were filed with the rejoinder. - Subsequent communications from the Respondent indicated an intent to reimburse, invoking the principle of promissory estoppel. - The Respondent itself agreed upon the computation of tax payable and signed detailed calculation sheets, negating the claim of contractual dispute. - The Respondent is a statutory public body, and the dispute involves public law elements, making writ jurisdiction maintainable despite contractual clauses, citing Supreme Court precedents like Whirlpool Corporation and ABL International Ltd. - The Court overlooked its own binding precedents in similar cases where arbitration clauses did not bar writ jurisdiction for statutory tax reimbursements. Respondent's Arguments: - The Respondent did not file any arguments in the review petition.