Deepak Pandey vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Deepak Pandey, a civil contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the Municipal Corporation, Raipur (respondents No. 2 & 3) to decide his representation dated November 20, 2023. The representation concerned the refund of excess Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid due to a rate change from 12% to 18% on works contracts effective July 18, 2022. The petitioner argued that other State Government departments, such as PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, had already approved refunds for similar excess GST payments. The petitioner contended that the Municipal Corporation should adopt a similar stance. The respondents acknowledged the petitioner's representation needed consideration but had no objection to the limited prayer sought.

Held

The Court held that the respondents No. 2 & 3 (Executive Engineer and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur) are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated November 20, 2023, expeditiously, preferably within 90 days from the receipt of the order. While deciding, the authorities are expected to take into account similar decisions made by the State Government for contracts with departments like PWD, Irrigation, and Water Resources. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim itself but focused on directing the decision-making process. No specific GST provisions were discussed in detail, nor were any amounts in dispute quantified in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities (Municipal Corporation, Raipur) are obligated to decide the petitioner's representation dated November 20, 2023, seeking a refund of excess GST paid due to a rate change from 12% to 18% on works contracts, considering similar decisions taken by other State Government departments (PWD, Water Resources, Irrigation)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that since other State Government departments have already decided to refund excess GST arising from rate deviations, the Municipal Corporation should also consider his claim. He highlighted that his representation, detailing the issue, has been pending decision. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents stated that while the representation needs to be considered by respondent Nos. 2 & 3, they had no objection to the limited relief sought by the petitioner.