Chintamani vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. And Ors.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to complete the necessary formalities and remove any deficiencies within fifteen days for seeking the refund of GST. Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents are to consider the petitioner's claim for refund and take a decision thereon within six weeks, provided there is no legal impediment. The Court also allowed the petitioner to claim interest if otherwise permissible, and a decision on this aspect should also be taken. The Court noted that if the petitioner remains aggrieved thereafter, they can invoke the arbitration clause or pursue other available legal remedies. The Court did not make a definitive finding on the entitlement to the GST amount or interest, but rather provided a procedural path for its resolution.

Facts

The petitioner, Chintamani, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to pay/release Rs. 64,71,789/- representing GST at 12% on a total amount of Rs. 5,39,31,572/-, along with interest. The petitioner also sought directions for the respondents to act on their written request dated March 14, 2019, as per the general conditions of the contract, and release the GST amount. The petitioner, at the outset, stated they would not press the second relief. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, stated that the GST amount deposited before the CGST Act, 2017, is refundable, but the petitioner had not submitted the required certified evidence/documents for the refund. They further indicated that the Government of India's guidelines required the contractor to submit copies of invoices, GST details certified by a Chartered Accountant, and that the petitioner had failed to complete these formalities despite several letters issued by the Executive Engineer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the release of the GST amount of Rs. 64,71,789/- along with interest, considering the contractual provisions and the GST regime. 2. Whether the respondents are obligated to process the petitioner's claim for GST refund without further delay, as per the petitioner's request dated March 14, 2019, and paragraph 24.1 of the general conditions of the contract. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner initially sought the release of the GST amount and interest, and also a direction to process their request under the contract. However, they later stated they would not press the second relief, indicating readiness to complete formalities for the refund. The petitioner relied on the general conditions of the contract for their claim. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the GST amount is refundable but requires the petitioner to submit certified evidence and documents as per Government of India guidelines (Order No. 21(17)/32017 F & A. dated 06.06.2018). They asserted that the petitioner failed to complete these necessary formalities despite repeated communications from the Executive Engineer, thus preventing the raising of demands for refund.