Bihani Constructions PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, Bihani Constructions Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur. The Registry initially pointed out a defect, stating the petition seemed improper as it was filed against GST. The petitioner's counsel clarified that the case was not about imposing tax but for a refund of the differential GST amount, as per Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules. The Court waived the defect. The petitioner's counsel then made a limited submission, requesting the respondent to consider and decide a pending representation dated 24.02.2026, in light of Clause 36E of the relevant rules, by passing a reasoned order within a specific timeframe.

Held

The Court addressed the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition by waiving the defect pointed out by the Registry, accepting the petitioner's clarification that the matter concerned a refund of differential GST under Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules, not the imposition of tax. On the substantive issue, the Court accepted the petitioner's limited submission. It directed the petitioner to submit their pending representation within fifteen days from the date of the order. The respondent was then directed to sympathetically decide this representation by passing a well-reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Court's order. The ratio decidendi is that when a specific rule (Clause 36E) governs a claim for refund of differential GST, and a representation is pending, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the concerned authority to consider and decide such representation within a reasonable time, provided the petitioner complies with procedural requirements.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in its current form, given the Registry's objection regarding its nature as a GST matter? 2. Whether the respondent should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 24.02.2026 concerning a refund of differential GST amount, in accordance with Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules, within a stipulated time? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was not about imposing tax but for a refund of differential GST, referencing Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules. They further submitted a limited prayer for the respondent to consider their pending representation dated 24.02.2026, in light of the aforementioned rule, and to pass a reasoned order within a specific period. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent. The Court proceeded based on the petitioner's limited submission.