M/S Sri Sai Infrastructure vs. C.G. State Warehousing Corporation

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sri Sai Infrastructure, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, alleging inaction by the respondents (C.G. State Warehousing Corporation and its officials) regarding the refund of GST collected during the execution of a contract. The contract was awarded during the pre-GST regime, and the GST law came into force on July 1, 2017, during the contract's execution. The petitioner contended that the respondents had failed to process their claim for GST refund. The respondent Corporation, through its counsel, stated that the petitioner's claim would be decided at the earliest, subject to verification of facts.

Held

The High Court of Chhattisgarh 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 conducted after due verification of the facts and the petitioner's entitlement. The Court emphasized that an appropriate decision should be taken, taking into account the petitioner's contention that GST has been refunded in similar cases by other government departments. The Court set an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of the order for the respondents to take an appropriate decision. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, as the primary grievance was the inaction, which the Court has now directed to be addressed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to process the petitioner's claim for a refund of Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected during the execution of a contract awarded prior to the GST regime, considering the subsequent implementation of GST law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents have failed to act on their claim for a GST refund. They highlighted that in similar cases involving other government departments such as PWD, PMGSY, NHAI, Railways, and CPWD, the government itself has refunded GST collected under similar circumstances. This implies a precedent and a potential obligation on the respondents. Respondents' Contention: The respondent Corporation, through its counsel, submitted that the claim of the petitioner shall be decided at the earliest, subject to the verification of facts. This indicates an acknowledgment of the claim but emphasizes the need for due process and verification before a decision is made.