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 deposits were made in connection with the petitioner's work for the "construction of Boundary Wall in Budha Smrit Stupa, Vaishali," pursuant to an agreement dated July 7, 2017. The petitioner contended that their case is covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors., dated July 5, 2019, and analogous cases. 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 M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors., and analogous cases. The Court clarified that all issues of fact and law were left open for determination by the said authority. The Court expressed expectation that the decision would be made expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the order. The reasoning for this decision was based on the petitioner's submission that their case was covered by a prior High Court judgment and the State's no-objection to a remand for fresh consideration. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner claims their case is covered by a precedent and the revenue consents to a remand, the High Court may direct the concerned authority to decide the matter afresh in light of that precedent, leaving all issues open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of GST deposited on running account bills for the construction of the Boundary Wall in Budha Smrit Stupa, Vaishali, in light of the judgment in M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors. (dated 05.07.2019)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their case is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment and analogous cases, implying they are entitled to the refund sought. Revenue/State's Contention: The State submitted that it 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. The State did not contest the petitioner's claim on merits but agreed to a procedural resolution.