M/S Ankita Construction vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Ankita Construction, is seeking a refund of the differential amount of Goods and Services Tax (GST) due to variations in GST rates during the commencement of work assigned to them. The issue pertains to work contracts assigned by the Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Limited (RSRDCC). The petitioner's claim arises from a change in GST rates that affected the cost of their contract. The present writ petition was filed to address this grievance.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of a refund of the differential amount of 6% GST. This entitlement is based on the order dated 07.01.2021, which introduced Clause 36E to the Public Works Financial & Accounts Rules. The Court's reasoning aligns with its previous decision in M/s N.G. Gadhiya vs. State Of Rajasthan and Ors., where similar issues were addressed. The Court found that the amended rule should be applicable to work contracts assigned by RSRDCC. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the letter dated 08.06.2022 (Annex.14) which presumably denied the refund. The respondents are directed to refund the differential GST amount of 6% to the petitioner within 30 days of the petitioner submitting a certified copy of the order. The petitioner is also to be paid interest at 6% per annum on the due amount from the date of their initial claim submission (20.01.2022). The Court directed the petitioner to make a representation to the concerned respondent authority with a copy of the order in M/s N.G. Gadhiya, and the authority is to consider it and pass a reasoned order within 30 days.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the differential GST amount of 6% based on the order dated 07.01.2021 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, amending the Public Works and Financial Accounts Rules, Part-2, specifically Clause 36(e)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contends that the order dated 07.01.2021, issued under the authority of the Governor of Rajasthan, making amendments to the Public Works and Financial Accounts Rules, including the newly added Clause 36(e), should be applicable to work contracts assigned by RSRDCC. They argue that since RSRDCC is a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking and the order was issued under the Governor's powers, the benefit of the amended rule should extend to their case. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State of Rajasthan and its departments).
Sections Cited
Clause 36(e), Clause 36E
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 27/03/2026
The issue involved in the present writ petition pertains to refund of differential amount of GST, on account of variation in the GST rates during commencement of the work assigned to the petitioner contractor.
[2026:RJ-JP:12874] (2 of 3) [CW-16362/2025]
This Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 has decided a similar issue in case of M/s N.G. Gadhiya vs. State Of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16435/2024), wherein observations made in para Nos.30, 37 and 38 are quotted as under:- “30. It is the submission of the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the order dated 07.01.2021 has been issued by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, under the orders of His Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan, so as to make amendments in the Public Works and Financial Accounts Rules Part-2. Once the Court has already held that the RSRDCC being a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking and other factors as discussed in the foregoing paras of this order has held that all the orders issued on powers being by His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan and the provisions of PWF & Account Rules, the newly added Clause 36(e) shall also be applicable in cases of work contracts assigned by the RSRDCC and the question ‘A’ is answered as above.
In view of the discussion made above and the answers to the questions as formulated, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of refund of differential amount of 6% GST in view of the order dated 07.01.2021 (newly inserted Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial & Accounts Rules) and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The letter dated 08.06.2022 (Annex.14) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to make refund of the differential amount of the GST i.e. 6% to the petitioner, which shall be effective from the revision of the GST Rate within 30 days from the
[2026:RJ-JP:12874] (3 of 3) [CW-16362/2025] date of submitting the certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be paid interest on due amount @ 6% per annum from the date when he first submitted its claim to the respondent- RSRDCC i.e. 20.01.2022.”
In view of the judgment passed by this Court in case of M/s N.G. Gadhiya(supra), the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the concerned respondent authority along with a copy of the order passed in case of M/s N.G. Gadhiya(supra) and the concerned respondent authority shall consider the representation of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order considering the observations of the Court.
The concerned respondent authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order, as early as possible and preferably within a period of thirty (30) days’ from the date of submitting the representation.
Accordingly, instant writ petition is disposed of.
The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /15
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.