M/S Spml-Bcpl (Jv) vs. State Of Rajasthan

CW/4819/2026HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02023517202616 March 2026Bench: GANESH RAM MEENA2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Spml-Bcpl (Jv), filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. 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 GST but seeking 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 then made a limited submission, requesting the respondent to consider and decide their pending representation dated 24.02.2026, in accordance with Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules, by passing a reasoned order within a specific timeframe.

Held

The Court waived the initial defect pointed out by the Registry, acknowledging the petitioner's clarification that the matter pertained to a refund of differential GST under Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules, rather than a challenge to the imposition of GST. On the limited submission made by the petitioner, the Court directed that the petitioner would submit their pending representation within fifteen days from the date of the order. The respondent was directed to sympathetically consider and decide this representation by passing a well-reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that when a representation concerning a financial rule, like Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules, is pending, and a limited prayer is made for its consideration and reasoned decision within a timeframe, the High Court can direct the concerned authority to do so, provided the underlying issue is not a direct challenge to GST imposition but a procedural or financial claim related to it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court in its current form, considering the initial defect pointed out by the Registry regarding its filing against GST. 2. Whether the respondent should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 24.02.2026, in light of Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules, by passing a reasoned order within a stipulated time. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the petition was not about imposing GST but about seeking a refund of the differential GST amount, as per Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules. They further submitted a limited prayer for the respondent to consider and decide their pending representation dated 24.02.2026, in accordance with the aforementioned rule, by passing a well-reasoned order within a specific timeframe. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent. The Court proceeded based on the petitioner's limited submission.

Sections Cited

Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4819/2026 M/s Spml-Bcpl (Jv), Through Its Proprietor Shri Mahaveer Prasad Bihani S/o Mangilal Bihani Aged About 52 Years, R/o Villa No. 4, Plot No. 9A, Prem Pushp Villas And Apartment, Shipra Vihar, Near Riddhi Siddhi Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302018 Having Its Registered Office At 64/167, Hira Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur- 302020. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer Special Projects, Public Health Engineering Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sarthak Rastogi, Mr. Chinmay Surolia For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order 16/03/2026

Registry has pointed out a defect that the writ petition filed against GST, seems not proper.

The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the present case is not in regard to imposing of the tax, but it is for refund of differential amount of GST, as per Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules.

In view of the prayer made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, the aforesaid defect pointed out by the Registry is waived.

(2 of 2) [CW-4819/2026]

Heard on admission.

The learned Senior Advocate, at the outset, makes a limited submission that the respondent may be directed to consider and decide his pending representation dated 24.02.2026, while keeping in mind the mandate of Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules appended with the tender document, by way of passing a well reasoned order within a particular time period.

In light of such limited submission, it is hereby directed that the petitioner shall submit his pending representation for ventilating his grievances within a period of ‘fifteen days’ from today, to the respondent. Pending representation of the petitioner may be sympathetically decided by the respondent by way of passing a well reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within a period of ‘one month’ from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, the 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 /232

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.