M/S Rajlaxmi Construction vs. Executive Engineer Hooghly Highway Division No 1And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Rajlaxmi Construction, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Goods and Services Tax (GST) allegedly paid erroneously. The petitioner contended that they had made a representation on February 19, 2021, to the concerned respondents, seeking this refund along with interest. This representation, marked as annexure P/33, remained unconsidered. The petitioner also relied on an order dated September 20, 2019, issued by the Joint Secretary, PWD department, in support of their claim. The respondents, including the Executive Engineer, Hooghly Highway Division No. 1, and others, were represented.

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits of the GST refund claim, directed Respondent No. 7 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated February 19, 2021. This disposal must be in accordance with the law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The authority is also required to take into account the order dated September 20, 2019, passed by the Joint Secretary, PWD. Furthermore, an opportunity of hearing must be granted to the petitioner or their authorized representative. The entire process is to be completed within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The petitioner is entitled to raise all points mentioned in the writ petition during the hearing before the authority. The writ petition and the connected application were disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated February 19, 2021, seeking a refund of erroneously paid GST with interest, in accordance with law? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that their representation had not been considered and sought a direction for its disposal. They relied on an order dated September 20, 2019, issued by the Joint Secretary, PWD department, to support their claim for refund. The State, represented by the Advocate General, did not appear to have raised any specific arguments against the consideration of the representation, but the court's direction implies a need for proper legal process. The revenue or State's specific contentions regarding the refund claim itself were not recorded.