M/S Rajendra Kumar Poddar vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rajendra Kumar Poddar Partnership Firm, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to decide their representation dated November 30, 2023. This representation was made for 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 July 18, 2022. The petitioner argued that other State Government departments, such as PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, had already decided to refund excess GST amounts arising from rate changes. They contended that the Municipal Corporation should adopt a similar stance. The petitioner's representation to the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, remained undecided.

Held

The Court directed respondents No. 2 and 3 (The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur, and The Executive Engineer Municipal Corporation, Raipur) to consider the petitioner's representation dated November 30, 2023, 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 for contracts with other departments like PWD, Irrigation, and Water Resources. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim itself but focused on ensuring the representation was duly considered in light of the petitioner's arguments and the State's stance. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities should consider representations promptly and in line with established practices of other departments within the same government, especially when such practices address similar issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities (Municipal Corporation, Raipur) are obligated to decide the petitioner's representation dated November 30, 2023, concerning the refund of excess GST paid due to a change in the GST rate on works contracts from 12% to 18% effective July 18, 2022? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of administrative fairness and potential applicability of similar decisions by other government departments). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the State Government had already decided to refund excess GST in similar cases involving contractors with departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation. They contended that there was no reason for the Municipal Corporation to deviate from this practice and that their representation, filed on November 30, 2023, had not been decided. Revenue/State's Arguments: The counsel for the State submitted that the representation filed by the petitioner needed to be considered by respondents No. 2 and 3. While acknowledging the limited prayer, the State had no objection to allowing the prayer for consideration of the representation.