M/S Goyal Traders vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Goyal Traders, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to decide their representation dated 09.02.2023. The representation concerned the refund of excess Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid due to a change in the GST rate on works contracts from 12% to 18% effective from 18.07.2022. The petitioner argued that other government departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation had already decided to refund such excess GST amounts. The petitioner had submitted a detailed representation to the Municipal Corporation, Raipur (respondent No. 2), which remained undecided. The State counsel had no objection to the petitioner's prayer for consideration of the representation.

Held

The Court directed respondents No. 2 and 3 (Municipal Corporation, Raipur) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2023 at the earliest, preferably within 90 days from the receipt of the order. While deciding, the authorities were expected to take into consideration similar decisions made by the State Government concerning contracts with departments like PWD, Irrigation, and Water Resources. The Court did not make a final determination on the refund itself but ordered the consideration of the representation based on the principle of parity and the State's no-objection to the prayer for consideration. The operative direction was to decide the pending representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities (Municipal Corporation, Raipur) are obligated to decide the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2023 seeking a refund of excess GST paid due to a rate change on works contracts, considering the principles of parity with decisions taken by other State Government departments? (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the State Government had already decided to refund excess GST paid on account of GST rate changes in other departments such as PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation. Therefore, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, should also follow a similar stand and consider the petitioner's claim for a refund. The petitioner highlighted that their representation had been pending decision since 09.02.2023. Revenue/State's Contentions: The learned counsel for the State submitted that the representation filed by the petitioner was to be considered by respondents No. 2 and 3. While considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the State had no objection to allowing the prayer.