M/S D.K. Engineering And Construction vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s D.K. Engineering and Construction, through its Power of Attorney Holder, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the respondent authorities to decide their representation dated 09.11.2023. The representation pertains to 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 the State Government has already approved refunds for similar excess GST amounts in other departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation. The respondents, while acknowledging the need to consider the representation, had no objection to the limited prayer made by the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that the respondents No. 2 & 3 are directed to consider the representation dated 09.11.2023 of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within 90 days from the receipt of a copy of the order. The reasoning is based on the submissions of both parties and the limited relief sought by the petitioner. The Court expects the respondent authorities to take into consideration the similar decisions made by the State Government for contracts executed with other departments, such as PWD, Irrigation Department, and Water Resources Department, while deciding the petitioner's claim. The operative direction is to consider the representation within the stipulated timeframe. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court focused on directing the consideration of the pending representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities (Municipal Corporation, Raipur) are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.11.2023 seeking a refund of excess GST paid due to a rate change on works contracts, considering similar decisions by other State Government departments? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since the State Government has already sanctioned refunds for excess GST paid on account of rate changes in contracts with departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, should also consider their claim for refund. They emphasized that their representation has been pending decision. Respondents' Contention: The respondents acknowledged that the representation filed by the petitioner needs to be considered by respondent Nos. 2 & 3. They did not object to the limited prayer made by the petitioner.