M/S Ganpati Infrastructures vs. Bilaspur Smart City Limited

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ganpati Infrastructures, entered into a contract with Bilaspur Smart City Limited (BSCL) on March 31, 2022, for road and drain construction. Following the contract, the GST rate increased due to a GST Council decision. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the difference in GST amount, submitting representations to BSCL. BSCL, by an order dated April 11, 2023, rejected the petitioner's claim, stating that no supporting documents were provided with the representation. The petitioner argued that the GST Council's decision is a public document and that BSCL is liable to incorporate such changes as per the contract's clause on taxes. The petitioner sought a direction for BSCL to reconsider the claim, offering to provide supporting documents.

Held

The Court found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation with all supporting documents. The Court noted that the previous rejection was based on the lack of documents. The respondents were directed to consider and decide the fresh representation afresh, without prejudice to their earlier decision of April 11, 2023, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the representation. The reasoning was based on the contractual clause (Clause C) which mandates the submission of formal requests with necessary supporting documents by the contractor, and BSCL's verification and approval thereof. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's offer to provide documents and the respondents' stance on objective consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim by the respondent-authorities for want of supporting documents is arbitrary and unsustainable, given that the change in GST rate was a decision of the GST Council, a public document. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the GST Council's decision is a public document and known to the respondents. They contended that Clause C of the contract, under 'Taxes, Duties and Statutory Levies,' makes BSCL liable to incorporate such changes. The petitioner sought a direction for reconsideration of their claim, offering to submit relevant documents. Respondents' contentions: The respondents argued that they considered the petitioner's representations objectively and rightly rejected them.