Kamalpura Construction Co. PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Kamalpura Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to refund GST deposited on various running account bills. These bills pertained to the petitioner's work in the "Construction of Block IT Centre Building at Muraul Block, Muzaffarpur" under Agreement No. 175 of SBD of 2017-18, dated October 30, 2017. The petitioner contended that their case was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors. The State submitted that it had no objection to the matter being remanded to the appropriate authority for consideration on its merits, in light of the cited judgment.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 5, the Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, to consider and decide the petitioner's case in terms of the judgment and order dated July 5, 2019, in CWJC No. 1452 of 2019 (M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors.). The Court clarified that all issues of fact and law were left open for the authority to decide. The Court expressed hope and expectation that Respondent No. 5 would consider and decide the case expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the Court's order. No specific finding was made on the entitlement to the refund, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of GST deposited on running account bills for the construction work, based on the precedent set in M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors. (CWJC No. 1452 of 2019)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their case was squarely covered by the judgment and order dated July 5, 2019, passed in CWJC No. 1452 of 2019 and analogous cases, implying they are entitled to the relief sought. Revenue/State's contention: The counsel for the State had no objection to the matter being remanded to the appropriate authority for consideration of the petitioner's case on its own merit, in accordance with law, and in light of the referred decision.