Bihani Constructions PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Rajasthan

CW/4820/2026HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02023513202616 March 2026Bench: GANESH RAM MEENA2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Bihani Constructions Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. The registry initially pointed out a defect, considering the petition to be against GST imposition. However, the petitioner's counsel clarified that the petition was not about tax imposition but for a refund of 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 a 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 specific timeframe.

Held

The Court addressed the preliminary defect raised by the registry by accepting the petitioner's submission that the case pertains to a refund of differential GST under Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules, not a challenge to GST imposition. The Court then considered the petitioner's limited submission. It directed the petitioner to submit their pending representation within fifteen days from the order date. The respondent was 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 order. The ratio of this decision is that when a specific statutory or contractual provision (like Clause 36E) governs a claim for refund, and a representation is pending, the High Court can direct the concerned authority to decide it within a reasonable time, provided the representation is submitted within a specified period. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable before this Court, considering the initial defect pointed out by the registry regarding its nature as a GST imposition challenge. 2. Whether the respondent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 24.02.2026, 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 is not about imposing GST but concerns a refund of differential GST as per Clause 36E of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules. The petitioner further contended that the respondent should be directed to consider their pending representation dated 24.02.2026, in light of the aforementioned rule, and pass a well-reasoned order within a specific period. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. The respondent's role appears to be in response to the petitioner's prayer for a direction to decide their representation.

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

[2026:RJ-JP:10936] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4820/2026 Bihani Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Through Authorized Representative 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, Jjm, 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.

[2026:RJ-JP:10936] (2 of 2) [CW-4820/2026]

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 /233

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.