A.P. Nirman Limited vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, A.P. Nirman Limited, a civil contractor, entered into an agreement with the State Government for civil works, wherein they were obligated to pay all taxes. Following the introduction of the GST regime on August 1, 2017, the petitioner claims to have incurred additional tax burdens beyond what was stipulated in the original agreement. The petitioner made repeated representations to the State authorities seeking a refund of this additional tax burden. However, no decision has been made on these applications to date. The petitioner relies on a similar order passed in WPC 460/2020, Manish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, for similar relief.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the inaction of the respondent authorities in deciding their representation for the refund of additional tax burden incurred due to the introduction of the GST regime. The Court noted that the State counsel did not object to the limited relief sought by the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a specific direction to Respondent No. 2, the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Water Resources Department, to decide on the petitioner's representation for the refund of the additional tax burden. The Court expected the decision to be taken at the earliest, preferably within 60 days from the receipt of the order, and directed the authorities to consider the relevant rules, regulations, guidelines, and general conditions of the agreement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to refund the additional tax burden incurred by the petitioner due to the introduction of the GST regime, as per the prevailing rules and regulations? The petitioner argued that under the applicable rules and regulations, the respondent authorities are indeed required to refund the additional tax burden suffered by the petitioner as a consequence of the new GST law. They contended that despite repeated approaches to the State authorities for this refund, no decision has been rendered. The petitioner cited the case of Manish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh to support their claim for similar relief. The State counsel, representing the respondents, did not raise any objection to the limited relief sought by the petitioner.