M/S Ravi Shankar Tripathi vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ravi Shankar Tripathi, a proprietorship firm and civil contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the respondent authorities to decide their representation dated October 13, 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 State Government departments, such as PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, had already decided to refund such excess GST amounts. The petitioner had submitted a detailed representation to the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai (respondent No. 2), but it remained undecided.

Held

The Court directed respondents No. 2 and 3 (The Commissioner and Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai) to consider the petitioner's representation dated October 13, 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 with other departments like PWD, Irrigation, and Water Resources. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim itself but focused on ensuring the representation was considered in light of prevailing government practices. No specific GST provisions were discussed in detail, as the matter was resolved by directing the authority to consider the representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, is obligated to consider the petitioner's claim for a refund of excess GST paid due to a change in the GST rate on works contracts, similar to decisions taken by other State Government departments? The petitioner contended that the State Government had already decided to refund excess GST in similar cases for contracts with departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation. Therefore, the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, should also adopt a similar stance and consider the petitioner's claim for refund. The petitioner highlighted that their representation dated October 13, 2023, to respondent No. 2, had not been decided. The State, through its counsel, stated that while the representation needed to be considered by respondents No. 2 and 3, the State had no objection to the limited prayer made by the petitioner being allowed.