M/S Vinod Kumar Jain vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vinod Kumar Jain, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to decide their representation dated 09.02.2024. This representation concerned the reimbursement of additional Goods and Services Tax (GST) levied on invoices issued after 01.01.2022, pursuant to notification No. 15/2021 dated 18.11.2021. The petitioner argued that the State Government had already approved similar reimbursements for contractors in other departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation. The petitioner had filed GST returns based on a revised rate of 18% for invoices issued after 18.07.2022 and sought reimbursement of the additional 6% GST liability. Their representation to respondent No. 3, the Executive Engineer (PMAY), Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, remained undecided.

Held

The Court directed respondents No. 2 and 3 (The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, and The Executive Engineer (PMAY), Municipal Corporation, Bhilai) to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2024 at the earliest, preferably within 90 days from the receipt of the order. The Court emphasized that while making their decision, the respondent authorities were expected to take into account similar decisions made by the State Government concerning contracts with other departments, such as the PWD, Irrigation Department, and Water Resources Department. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST reimbursement claim itself but focused on ensuring the representation was duly considered in light of established governmental practice. No specific issue was left undecided, as the core relief sought was the consideration of the representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, is obligated to consider and decide the petitioner's representation for reimbursement of additional GST levied on invoices issued after 01.01.2022, in light of similar decisions taken by other State Government departments? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of administrative fairness and consistency). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the State Government itself had taken a decision to refund/reimburse excess GST amounts arising from deviations in GST rates in contracts with departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation. They argued that there was no reason for the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, to deviate from this established practice and that their claim for reimbursement of excess GST should be considered. They highlighted that they had already filed GST returns on the basis of the revised rate and sought additional reimbursement, and that their representation remained undecided. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel submitted that the representation filed by the petitioner was to be considered by respondents No. 2 & 3. While acknowledging the petitioner's limited prayer, the State had no objection to allowing the prayer for consideration of the representation.