Gayatri Ventures vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3. The Court directed Respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider and decide this representation at the earliest, preferably within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. While deciding, the respondents were expected to take into consideration similar decisions taken by the State Government for contracts executed with the Irrigation Department, Water Resources Department, and other such departments. The Court did not make a specific finding on the petitioner's entitlement to the refund itself but directed the authorities to consider the claim in light of the prevailing practice in other government departments.

Facts

The petitioner, Gayatri Ventures, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to decide their representation for the refund of excess Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid. This excess GST arose 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 Water Resources and Irrigation, have already decided to refund excess GST in similar situations. The petitioner had submitted representations to Respondent No. 2 on March 15, 2023, and April 21, 2023. The State counsel contended that the petitioner had not submitted a representation to Respondent No. 3, who is also a competent authority. The petitioner then sought permission to submit a fresh representation to Respondents No. 2 and 3, with a direction for them to decide it within a specified time.

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, and if the respondents are obligated to decide the petitioner's representation for such refund. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the State Government has already decided to refund excess GST in similar cases for contracts with departments like Water Resources and Irrigation. They argued that there is no reason for the Public Works Department to deviate from this practice and that their claim for refund should be considered. They relied on their prior representations made to Respondent No. 2. Respondents' Arguments: The State counsel argued that the petitioner had not submitted a representation to Respondent No. 3, who is also a competent authority to consider the claim. The State did not otherwise contest the petitioner's claim for refund on merits.