M/S Bharat Builders vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bharat Builders, sought a direction from the High Court to the respondent authorities for the release/reimbursement of GST amounting to Rs. 11,76,000/-, along with accrued and penal interest. The petitioner had undertaken a construction work for the Public Health Engineering Department, Baloda Bazar Division, for which a work order was issued on May 27, 2018. The petitioner completed the work and obtained a completion certificate on January 6, 2022, with the work being completed on May 15, 2020. While periodic bills were paid, the GST amount deducted by the department was not refunded. The petitioner made several representations to the authorities, including a legal notice on January 14, 2024, but no decision was taken on their claim.

Held

The Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's claim for the reimbursement of GST and interest. The Court reasoned that ends of justice would be met by issuing a direction for a decision on the petitioner's claim. The Court ordered that the petitioner must submit a fresh representation to the concerned authorities along with the requisite documents and a copy of the Court's order within two weeks. The respondent authorities are then obligated to decide this fresh representation within two months from its receipt, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST calculation or the specific provisions of the GST Act, focusing instead on ensuring a timely decision by the authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to consider the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of GST amounting to Rs. 11,76,000/- along with interest, and if so, within what timeframe? The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the refund of the deducted GST amount and that they are only required to submit a GST certificate from a Chartered Accountant for this purpose. They contended that despite making multiple representations and serving a legal notice, the authorities have failed to decide their claim. The respondents argued that the bills raised by the petitioner only calculated the GST output liability and did not account for the input liability. Therefore, they requested the petitioner to submit fresh bills to enable the department to make an appropriate decision. They further submitted that if the petitioner files the requisite documents, the department will decide the claim as early as possible.