M/S Alok Buildtech PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Alok Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., a contractor, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petitioner's grievance was against the inaction of the State respondents (Public Works Department officials) in refunding GST collected from the petitioner during the execution of a contract. The petitioner contended that the contract was awarded at pre-GST rates and that the Central Government had issued circulars providing for the refund of GST paid on contracts executed before or after the introduction of GST, upon submission of certificates of GST payment. Despite repeated representations, the petitioner alleged that the respondents had failed to process the refund. The State counsel submitted that the claim would be decided after verification of facts and consideration of its eligibility under Central Government circulars.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the State Authorities to immediately process the petitioner's claim for GST refund. The Court emphasized that this processing should be done after due verification of facts and the petitioner's entitlement. The decision should take into account the earlier orders of the Central Government dated 28.01.2020 and 06.06.2018, and any subsequent orders on the matter. The State Authorities were also directed to consider the petitioner's contention that GST refunds have been granted in similar cases. A final decision is to be taken within 90 days from the receipt of the order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the core of the decision is to direct the authorities to act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of GST collected on a contract awarded at pre-GST rates, in light of Central Government circulars? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the contract and relevant circulars). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the contract was awarded at pre-GST rates and that the Central Government's circulars mandate the refund of GST paid in such circumstances. They relied on the principle that the government itself has refunded GST in similar cases. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel submitted that the claim would be decided subject to verification of facts and whether the petitioner's claim falls within the scope of the Central Government circulars and orders. No specific circulars or precedents were cited by the State.