M/S. Ramniwas Agrawal vs. C.G. State Warehousing Corporation

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ramniwas Agrawal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.06.2024, read with a letter dated 02.08.2024, passed by the respondents, C.G. State Warehousing Corporation. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and declare them illegal. Specifically, the petitioner prayed for adjudication that an additional liability of 6% GST on contracts executed before 18.07.2022 should not be borne by them. They also sought a direction for the respondent Corporation to refund the additional 6% GST paid by the petitioner on contracts entered into prior to 18.07.2022. The petition was noted to have several defects pointed out by the Registry, which remained uncured.

Held

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one, citing the numerous defects pointed out by the Registry which remained uncured, indicating the petition was filed in a casual manner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The dismissal was made subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost before the Registry of the Court. This cost amount is to be transmitted to the Government Special School for Visually Handicapped Boys and Girls, Jashpur (C.G.). The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh petition, and the receipt of the cost deposit is to be submitted at the time of filing the fresh petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 read with letter dated 02.08.2024 passed by the respondent Corporation is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside, and declared non-est. 2. Whether the additional liability of 6% GST on contracts executed by the petitioner before 18.07.2022 is to be borne by the petitioner. 3. Whether the respondent Corporation is obligated to refund the additional GST of 6% paid by the petitioner in respect of contracts entered into prior to 18.07.2022. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the additional liability of 6% GST on contracts executed before 18.07.2022 should not be borne by them and that the respondent Corporation is obligated to refund the additional GST paid. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and letter. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the revenue or state respondents.