Vinod Kumar Pandey vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar Pandey, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the refund of excess Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid, along with interest. The petitioner argued that the State Government had already decided to refund excess GST in similar cases involving departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, due to deviations in GST rates. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated January 5, 2024, to the Raipur Development Authority (respondents No. 2 and 3), but it remained undecided. The respondents, including the State and the Raipur Development Authority, stated they had no objection to the petitioner's prayer and assured that the representation would be considered strictly in accordance with law.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents No. 2 and 3 (Raipur Development Authority) to consider the petitioner's representation dated January 5, 2024, at the earliest, preferably within 90 days from the receipt of the order. While deciding, the authorities were expected to take into account similar decisions made by the State Government concerning contracts with other departments like PWD, Irrigation, and Water Resources. The Court did not explicitly rule on the entitlement to the refund or interest but directed the consideration of the representation, implicitly acknowledging the petitioner's grievance and the precedent set by other departments. No specific issue was left undecided, as the core relief sought was the consideration of the representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of excess GST paid, along with interest, considering the State Government's decisions in similar cases with other departments? (Question of law and fact, concerning the principle of parity and administrative consistency). 2. Whether the respondents are obligated to decide the petitioner's representation dated January 5, 2024, within a stipulated timeframe? (Question of law, concerning the duty to decide representations). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the State Government had already taken a favorable stand for contractors in departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation regarding the refund of excess GST arising from rate deviations. Therefore, the Raipur Development Authority should also adopt a similar approach and consider the petitioner's claim. The petitioner highlighted that their representation had not been decided. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents stated they had no objection to the petitioner's prayer and assured that the representation would be considered strictly in accordance with law.