West INDIA Construction Company vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, West India Construction Company, through its partner Ashok Kumar Jain, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent authorities to decide their representation dated May 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 from July 18, 2022. The petitioner argued that other government departments, such as PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, had already decided to refund such excess GST amounts. The petitioner contended that the Public Health Engineering Division should adopt a similar stance. The State Government, through its counsel, had no objection to the petitioner's prayer.

Held

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, disposed of the writ petition at the motion stage. The Court directed respondents 4 and 5 (Executive Engineer and Member Secretary, District Water and Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Department, Division- Durg, and Jal Jiwan Mission Technical Committee) to consider the petitioner's representation dated May 13, 2023, at the earliest. The decision was to be made preferably within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. While deciding, the respondent authorities were expected to 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 delve into the merits of the GST refund claim itself but focused on directing the authorities to decide the pending representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to decide the petitioner's representation dated May 13, 2023, seeking a refund of excess GST paid due to a rate change on works contracts from 12% to 18% effective July 18, 2022? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that the State Government had already taken a decision to refund excess GST amounts in other departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, following a change in GST rates on works contracts. - They contended that there was no reason for the Public Health Engineering Division to deviate from this practice and that the petitioner's claim for refund of excess GST should be considered. - The petitioner highlighted that their representation dated May 13, 2023, submitted to respondent No. 4, had not yet been decided. Respondents' Arguments: - The State counsel stated that the representation filed by the petitioner was to be considered by respondents 4 & 5. - The State counsel had no objection to allowing the limited prayer made by the petitioner.