West INDIA Construction Company Western Chambers1/3 Akash Ganga vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, West India Construction Company, through its partner Ashok Kumar Jain, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the respondent authorities to decide their representation dated May 13, 2023. The representation concerned the refund of excess Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid due to a rate change on works contracts from 12% to 18% effective July 18, 2022. The petitioner argued that other state government departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation had already decided to refund such excess GST amounts. The petitioner had submitted a detailed representation to Respondent No. 3, which remained undecided.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated May 13, 2023, at the earliest, preferably within 90 days from the receipt of the order. While making a decision, the respondent authorities were directed to take into account similar decisions made by the State Government concerning contracts with other departments like PWD, Irrigation Department, and Water Resources Department. The Court did not make a definitive finding on the entitlement to the refund itself but directed the authorities to consider the representation in light of the petitioner's arguments and the State's stance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of excess GST paid due to a change in the GST rate on works contracts from 12% to 18% effective July 18, 2022? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the State Government itself has taken a decision to refund excess GST amounts arising from rate deviations in contracts with other departments, such as PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation. They argued that the Department of Public Health Engineering Division should adopt a similar stance and consider their claim for a refund. The petitioner highlighted that their representation dated May 13, 2023, to Respondent No. 3, seeking this refund, had not yet been decided. Respondents' Contentions: The State's counsel submitted that the representation filed by the petitioner needs to be considered by Respondents 2 and 3. While considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the State had no objection to allowing the prayer.