M/S Bharat Builders vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bharat Builders, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated 26.11.2024 from the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Balodabazar. This letter rejected the petitioner's representation for reimbursement of GST amounting to Rs. 11,76,000/-. The petitioner had previously filed WPT No. 166 of 2024, seeking directions for GST reimbursement based on a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 07.07.2017, a Corrigendum dated 20.07.2017, and a Guidance Note dated 03.10.2017. A previous High Court order directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation, which was subsequently rejected by the impugned letter. The petitioner argued that the NIT was issued after GST implementation, making GST a separate component not included in the contract price, and that departmental instructions recognized this. The State contended that the NIT clearly stipulated that all taxes were to be borne by the contractor.

Held

The High Court held that it should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when disputed questions of fact are involved, citing several Supreme Court judgments. The Court found that the relief sought by the petitioner was contingent upon the resolution of disputed factual questions, which could not be adjudicated under Article 226. Therefore, the Court deemed it inappropriate to entertain the writ petition. The Court noted that while there is no prohibition against the writ court deciding disputed facts, especially when it surrounds the demystification of documents, it may relegate parties to a civil suit if resolution of disputed facts is necessary as a prelude to granting relief. In this case, the Court concluded that the disputed questions of fact and law involved made the writ petition an improper remedy. The petition was dismissed, with liberty reserved for the petitioner to pursue other available alternate remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the case involves disputed questions of fact, as per the settled law cited by the Supreme Court in cases like Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das, Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam, Union of India v. Puna Hinda, and M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd.? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the NIT dated 07.07.2017 was issued after the implementation of GST on 01.07.2017, meaning GST was not part of the original contract price. They relied on a Corrigendum/Letter dated 15.12.2023 recognizing GST of Rs. 11.76 lakhs as payable separately, and on the Common Set of Conditions and Guidance Note dated 03.10.2017 which provided for GST treatment as per departmental instructions, specifically referencing GST Notification dated 22.08.2017. The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities misinterpreted facts and ignored relevant documents. Respondent/State's arguments: The State argued that the NIT explicitly stated all taxes and levies were to be borne by the contractor. They contended that the petitioner voluntarily participated in the tender with full knowledge of the terms and cannot seek modification. The State asserted that general conditions like the Common Set of Conditions and Guidance Note do not override specific contractual stipulations in the NIT and agreement, and the rejection was based on sound reasoning.