M/S Vinod Kumar Jain vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vinod Kumar Jain, entered into an agreement with Respondent No. 4, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, on August 5, 2017, following a tender process. The petitioner had quoted prices based on tax implications up to July 2017. Subsequently, the GST rate increased from 10-12% to 18%, effective from July 1, 2017. The petitioner claims to have paid taxes under the new regime and made a representation on September 25, 2023, seeking reimbursement of the additional GST burden. This representation remained undecided. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking reimbursement of GST or, alternatively, a direction to decide their representation. The respondents had no objection to the limited prayer.

Held

The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within two weeks. Respondents No. 2 and 4 were then directed to consider and decide this fresh representation within 60 days from its filing, in accordance with applicable laws and rules, provided the earlier representation dated September 25, 2023, had not already been decided. The Court also noted that Respondents No. 2 and 4 should consider previous orders passed by the Court in similar cases. The Court explicitly stated that it had not touched the merit of the case. The primary relief granted was a direction for the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's grievance within a stipulated timeframe.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the additional GST amount paid due to the rate enhancement from 10-12% to 18% effective from July 1, 2017, on the services rendered under agreement no. 03/2017-18, entered into on August 5, 2017? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the Petitioner's representation dated September 25, 2023, seeking reimbursement of GST, warrants a decision from the Respondent authorities? (Question of procedure and law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the GST rate increase after the agreement caused an additional tax burden. They submitted that various government departments have issued orders to mitigate such increased tax burdens. The petitioner had paid taxes as per the new regime and their representation for reimbursement was not decided. They sought a direction to decide the representation or grant reimbursement. Respondents' arguments: Respondents No. 2 to 4 stated they had no objection to allowing the limited prayer of the petitioner.