M/S Sanjay Singhi vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court, without entering into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the refund of GST, disposed of the writ petition. The Court permitted the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before respondents No. 4 to 7 (Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer, and Engineer-in-Chief of the Public Works Department). The Court directed that upon submission of the representation, the concerned authorities shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law and expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The decision should take into account the circular dated 13.07.2022 issued by the Government of India and Clause 7.2 of the tender documents. No specific finding was given on the entitlement to the refund itself, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the representation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sanjay Singhi, entered into several work contracts with various departments of the State of Chhattisgarh between August 2018 and August 2022. The petitioner's grievance is that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate for work contracts was initially 12% but was later enhanced to 18%. Clause 7.2 of the tender documents, according to the petitioner, entitles them to a refund of this enhanced tax amount. The petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondents seeking consideration of this claim, but no decision was taken. The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to the respondents to decide their pending representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the difference in GST paid on work contracts due to an enhancement in the tax rate from 12% to 18%, in light of Clause 7.2 of the tender documents and a circular dated 13.07.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to a refund of the enhanced GST rate (from 12% to 18%) based on Clause 7.2 of the tender documents. They also contended that similar directions have been issued in other departments and that their representation to the respondents for consideration of this claim has not been decided. They sought a direction for the respondents to decide their pending representation. Respondents' Contention: The learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner was not pressing the petition on merits and was only seeking a direction to consider and decide the pending representation, and therefore, the State had no objection. However, they noted that a copy of the representation was not placed on record.