M/S Dubey Goyal And Company vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dubey Goyal And Company, a Class A Contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to decide their representation dated December 22, 2023. This 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 July 18, 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's representation was made to Respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, but remained undecided.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents No. 2 and 3 (The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, and The Executive Engineer (PMAY), Municipal Corporation, Raipur) to consider the petitioner's representation dated December 22, 2023, at the earliest, preferably within 90 days from the receipt of the order. While making their decision, the respondent authorities were expected to take into account similar decisions made by the State Government concerning contracts executed with other departments like PWD, Irrigation, and Water Resources. The Court did not make a definitive finding on the entitlement to the refund itself but directed the consideration of the representation, implicitly acknowledging the petitioner's grounds by referencing the decisions of other government departments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of excess GST paid on works contracts due to a rate change from 12% to 18% effective July 18, 2022? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the State Government, in other departments such as PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, had already approved refunds for excess GST paid due to rate changes. Therefore, the Municipal Corporation should also consider their claim for a refund of excess GST, as their representation dated December 22, 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. The State had no objection to allowing the prayer made by the petitioner, given the limited relief sought.