Vub Engiineering PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Rajasthan

CW/6765/2026HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02030987202615 April 2026Bench: SAMEER JAIN2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

Vub Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. The petitioner's primary grievance was that the respondents, the State of Rajasthan through its Water Resource Department and its Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer, had not decided representations seeking payment of an amount equivalent to GST/Tax. This payment was sought in accordance with Clause 15.21 of the contract. The petitioner argued that this clause stipulated that while taxes would be inclusive, any adverse change in legislation leading to inflation should either be considered under the price variation clause or be otherwise payable by the respondents. The petitioner also relied on a previous judgment of a co-ordinate bench.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the respondents. Respondent No. 2, the Chief Engineer or the competent authority, was directed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was given a period of seven days to file the representation, if not already filed. The competent authority was further directed to grant an audience to the petitioner's advocate or the petitioner in person on 28.04.2026 at 11:00 AM. Following this, the authority was to pass a speaking order in accordance with the law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the interpretation of Clause 15.21 or the GST/Tax amount in dispute, focusing instead on ensuring the representation was considered and a decision was taken.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to decide the petitioner's representation seeking payment of GST/Tax under Clause 15.21 of the contract, considering the adverse impact of legislative changes. Petitioner's Arguments: - Clause 15.21 of the contract mandates that if there is an adverse change in legislation leading to inflation, the petitioner should be compensated either through the price variation clause or direct payment. - The amount sought is in the nature of indirect tax, and the petitioner is merely a custodian of this liability. - Relied on the judgment in M/s N.G. Gadhiya Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (dated 25.03.2026) passed by a co-ordinate bench. Respondents' Arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents' side regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim or the interpretation of Clause 15.21. Their counsel marked attendance, indicating their presence in the proceedings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2026:RJ-JP:15621] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6765/2026 Vub Engiineering Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At 103, Business Park, Junction Of Derasar Lane And Tilak Road, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai 400077 Through Its Authorised Person Ram Ratan Sharma S/o Tulsi Das Sharma Aged About 58 Years R/o 1931, Brahma Marg, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur - 302003. Local Office- The Raj Landmark, D-38, Unit No. 104, 1St Floor, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Bhawani Singh Road, C Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. 2. Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Bhawani Singh Road, C Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. 3. Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division, Karauli, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pratyushi Mehta with Mr. Mayank Taparia For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Choudhary with Mr. Vinayam Saran for Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order 15/04/2026

Present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the primary grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not deciding representations filed by the petitioner seeking payment of amount/GST/Tax in terms of Clause 15.21 of the contract.

[2026:RJ-JP:15621] (2 of 2) [CW-6765/2026]

It is submitted that document in relation to assess liability incurred by the petitioner on account of change in legislation is statutory in nature, merely as a custodian and same is a type of indirect tax. It is submitted that Clause 15.21 categorically specifies that though the levy of all taxes will be inclusive, but if there is inflation/change adverse to the petitioner, either the same it ought to be considered in price variation clause or otherwise the same is payable.

Learned counsel has relied upon judgment dated 25.03.2026 of co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16435/2024 titled M/s N.G. Gadhiya Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Upon hearing the matter, on directions of this Court Ms. Mahi Choudhary and Mr. Vinayam Saran have mark attendance on behalf of Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG, therefore, notices need not be issued.

In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and taking note of the material available on record, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent No.2/competent authority shall consider the representation, if filed within a period of seven days and grant audience to the concerned advocate/petitioner (in-person) on 28.04.2026 at 11:00 AM, and thereafter pass a speaking order, in accordance with law.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK /22

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.