M/S Goyal Traders vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Goyal Traders, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for 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 State Government departments, such as PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, had already decided to refund such excess GST amounts. The petitioner contended that the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, should adopt a similar stance and consider their refund claim. The representation was made to Respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, but remained undecided.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to Respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2023 expeditiously, preferably within 90 days from the receipt of the order. The Court directed that while making a decision, the respondent authorities should take into consideration similar decisions made by the State Government concerning contracts executed by contractors with other departments, such as PWD, Irrigation Department, and Water Resources Department. The Court did not make a final determination on the refund itself but directed the authorities to consider the representation in light of the precedent set by other government departments. No specific GST provisions were discussed in detail, and the primary focus was on the procedural direction to decide the pending representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities, specifically Respondent No. 2 and 3, 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 from 12% to 18% effective 18.07.2022? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the State Government, in other departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, had already decided to refund excess GST amounts arising from rate deviations. They contended that there was no reason for the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, to deviate from this practice and that their representation, submitted on 09.02.2023, had not been decided. Respondents' Arguments: The counsels for the respondents acknowledged that the representation filed by the petitioner needed to be considered by Respondent No. 2 and 3. Given the limited prayer made by the petitioner, they had no objection to the prayer being allowed.