M/S B.K. Chawla Contractor vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s B.K. Chawla Contractor, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petitioner's grievance was the inaction of the respondents, various authorities within the Public Works Department of Chhattisgarh, in refunding the Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected from the petitioner. The contract was awarded to the petitioner prior to the introduction of the GST regime on July 1, 2017, but GST was levied during the execution of the works contract. The petitioner alleged repeated attempts to seek a refund, as evidenced by Annexure P/6, had been met with inaction. The respondents, through the Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner's claim would be decided at the earliest, subject to verification of facts.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the inaction of the respondent authorities in processing the refund of GST. The Court noted the respondents' submission that the claim would be decided expeditiously after verification of facts. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to immediately process the petitioner's claim for the refund of GST. This processing is to be done after due verification of facts and the petitioner's entitlement. The Court emphasized that an appropriate decision should be taken, considering the petitioner's contention that similar GST refund claims from other government departments have been honored. The Court set an outer limit of 90 days from the receipt of the order for the authorities to take an appropriate decision. No specific provision of the GST Act was explicitly discussed or interpreted as the matter was resolved through a direction for expeditious action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have failed to act on the petitioner's claim for refund of GST collected during the execution of a contract awarded prior to the GST regime, and if so, what is the appropriate relief? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and contractual obligations). The petitioner argued that the respondents have been inactive in processing their claim for the refund of GST collected during the execution of a contract awarded before the GST regime. They highlighted that similar claims in other government departments like PWD, PMGSY, NHAI, Railways, and CPWD have been refunded by the government itself. The petitioner relied on the principle that inaction on the part of the authorities necessitates judicial intervention. The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, did not present a detailed argument but submitted that the claim would be decided at the earliest, subject to the verification of facts. They did not dispute the petitioner's claim for refund but indicated a procedural requirement for verification.