M/S B M S Projects Having Its Registered Office At B M S House vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s B M S Projects, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petitioner's grievance was the inaction of the respondents (State of Chhattisgarh and its various departments) in refunding GST collected from the petitioner for contracts executed prior to the introduction of GST on July 1, 2017. The petitioner contended that the State Government had issued a circular allowing refunds of GST paid on pre-GST regime contracts upon submission of proof of payment. Despite repeated attempts, the petitioner claimed no action was taken. The State counsel submitted that the claim would be decided after verification of facts and consideration of relevant government circulars.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the State 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 keeping in view the State Government's order dated October 10, 2018, and all subsequent relevant orders. The Court also noted the petitioner's contention that similar claims have been refunded by the government. The State Authorities were given an outer limit of 90 days from the receipt of the order to take a decision. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court directed immediate action on the petitioner's claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of GST paid on contracts executed prior to July 1, 2017, in accordance with the State Government's circulars and orders? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of government directives). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to a refund of GST collected and paid on contracts awarded before July 1, 2017, as per the State Government's circular. They highlighted the inaction of the respondents despite their repeated approaches and pointed out that similar claims have been refunded by the government. Respondent's Argument: The State counsel submitted that the petitioner's claim would be considered and decided subject to verification of facts and whether the claim falls within the scope of the issued circulars and orders pertaining to GST refunds for pre-GST contracts.