Ms Hills Trade Rk Through Its Authorized Signatory Shailendra Kumar Mehta vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Hills Trade RK (JV), filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the 4th respondent (Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department) to decide their representation dated July 26, 2018. This representation pertained to the refund of excess Goods and Services Tax (GST) deducted from payments due to the petitioner. The petitioner highlighted a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated August 26, 2022, issued by the Government, which they contended was applicable to their case, and provided calculations for the refund amount. The respondents disputed the applicability of the SOP and the petitioner's claims but agreed to consider a fresh, consolidated representation.

Held

The Court held that it was not the appropriate forum to decide the rival contentions regarding the entitlement to the refund or its quantum. This matter should first be decided by the 4th respondent. Given that nearly seven years had passed since the initial representation, the Court agreed with the respondents that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file a fresh and consolidated representation. The petitioner was granted liberty to file this representation within four weeks, including all relevant materials and calculations. The 4th respondent was directed to dispose of this fresh representation within two months of its receipt, in accordance with law and on its own merits. All contentions of both parties on merits were expressly left open as the Court had not examined them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of excess GST deducted from payments, and if so, the quantum thereof, in light of the SOP dated 26.08.2022 and the petitioner's calculations? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the SOP dated 26.08.2022 is applicable to their case and that they have provided precise calculations for the refund they are entitled to. They sought a direction for the 4th respondent to consider their original representation dated 26.07.2018 in light of the SOP and their subsequent calculations. Respondents' Contention: The respondents disputed the applicability of the SOP and the petitioner's claims regarding the refund. However, they stated that they would consider a fresh and consolidated representation from the petitioner, referring to the SOP and calculations, and dispose of it in accordance with law.