Gayatri Ventures vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to respondents No. 2 and 3, raising the grievance presented in the writ petition. The Court directed respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider and decide this representation at the earliest, preferably within 60 days from the receipt of the order. While deciding, the respondents were expected to take into consideration similar decisions made by the State Government for contracts with the Irrigation Department, Water Resources Department, and other such departments. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim itself but facilitated the process for its consideration by the competent authorities, emphasizing the need for consistency with prior government decisions.

Facts

The petitioner, Gayatri Ventures, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to decide its representation for a refund of excess Goods and Services Tax (GST). The 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 State Government departments, such as Water Resources and Irrigation, have already decided to refund excess GST in similar situations and that the Public Works Department should adopt a similar stance. The petitioner had submitted representations to Respondent No. 2 on March 15, 2023, and April 21, 2023. The State counsel noted that no representation was submitted 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.

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? 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. Therefore, the Public Works Department should also consider their claim for refund. They relied on the principle of parity and consistent application of policy across government departments. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel pointed out that the petitioner had not submitted a representation to Respondent No. 3, who is a competent authority to consider the claim. They did not otherwise contest the merits of the refund claim but focused on procedural aspects.