M/S. Ashok Khandelwal vs. C.G. State Warehousing Corporation
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Ashok Khandelwal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.06.2024 read with a letter dated 02.08.2024 passed by the respondents, the C.G. State Warehousing Corporation. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and declare it illegal. The core grievance was to adjudicate that an additional liability of 6% GST on contracts executed before 18.07.2022 should not be borne by the petitioner and to direct the respondent Corporation to refund the additional GST paid. The petition was filed with several defects, which remained uncured despite the Registry pointing them out. The petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh.
Held
The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the case concerning the GST liability. The primary issue addressed was the procedural deficiency in the filing of the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed the petition in a casual manner, with numerous defects pointed out by the Registry that remained uncured. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh. However, this liberty was granted subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs with the Registry of the Court. This cost was imposed for filing the petition casually and not curing the defaults, thereby wasting the Court's time. The amount deposited was to be transmitted to the Special School for Intellectually Handicapped Girls, District Narayanpur (C.G.). The Court did not decide the substantive issues regarding the GST liability or the refund.
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, concerning the additional GST liability on contracts executed 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 declare the impugned order non-est and illegal. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondent Corporation. The matter was decided based on the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
2025:CGHC:32468-DB
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3599 of 2025 M/s. Ashok Khandelwal Having Its Office At Tulsi Near Nehru Garden, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Through Its Partner Shri Parag Doshi S/o Shri Bipin Doshi, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Opposite Nehru Garden, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s) versus
C.G. State Warehousing Corporation Head Office Village Jhanjh, Sector-24 Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Managing Director
Managing Director C.G. State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office Village Jhanjh, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
Executive Engineer C.G. State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office Village Jhanjh, Sector-24 Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri
Ramesh Sinha,
Chief Justice
Hon'ble
Shri Bibhu Datta Guru
, Judge
Order
on Board
Per
Ramesh Sinha
, Chief Justice
2025
Heard Mr. Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. BRI
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.