Rajeev Gupta vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Rajeev Gupta, a civil contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the Municipal Corporation, Raipur (respondents No. 2 & 3) to decide his representation dated January 4, 2023. The representation concerns 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, have already decided to refund such excess GST amounts for similar contracts. The petitioner stated that his representation to the Municipal Corporation remained undecided.

Held

The Court directed respondents No. 2 & 3 (Municipal Corporation, Raipur) to consider the petitioner's representation dated January 4, 2023, expeditiously, preferably within 90 days from the receipt of the order. While deciding, the respondent authorities are expected to take into account similar decisions made by the State Government concerning contracts with other departments like PWD, Irrigation Department, and Water Resources Department. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim itself but focused on ensuring the representation is considered in light of the petitioner's submissions and the actions of other government departments. The primary finding was that the representation warranted consideration, especially given the precedent set by other state departments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities (Municipal Corporation, Raipur) are obligated to decide the petitioner's representation dated January 4, 2023, seeking a refund of excess GST paid due to a rate change on works contracts from 12% to 18% effective July 18, 2022? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the State Government has already approved refunds of excess GST in similar situations for contracts with departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation. Therefore, the Municipal Corporation should also consider and grant the refund of excess GST paid by the petitioner. The petitioner highlighted that his representation has not been decided by the respondents. Respondents' contentions: The counsels for the respondents submitted that while the representation filed by the petitioner needs to be considered by respondents No. 2 & 3, they had no objection to the limited prayer made by the petitioner, given the circumstances.