Ganpati Infra Civil PVT. LTD. (Spv) vs. Bilaspur Smart City Limited

Held

The Court found that the ground on which the petitioner's earlier representation was rejected (lack of supporting documents) was unsustainable, especially considering the claim was based on a GST Council decision, which is a public document. The Court noted that Clause C of the agreement specifically deals with the incorporation of changes in indirect taxes due to changes in indirect tax laws, including GST law. The Court held that it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit a fresh representation with all supporting documents. The respondents were directed to consider and decide this fresh representation afresh, without prejudice to their earlier decision, at the earliest, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the representation. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Ganpati Infra Civil Pvt. Ltd. (SPV), entered into a contract with Bilaspur Smart City Limited (BSCL) on April 28, 2021, for road construction. Following the contract, the GST rate was enhanced. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the difference in GST amount, citing a change in tax regime due to a GST Council decision. The petitioner made several representations to BSCL. BSCL rejected the petitioner's claim on April 11, 2023, stating that no supporting documents were enclosed with the representation. A subsequent representation was also rejected on May 19, 2023, on the ground that no escalation clause was applicable to the contract. The petitioner contended that the GST Council decision is a public document and BSCL is liable to incorporate such changes as per Clause C of the contract regarding Taxes, Duties and Statutory Levies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim by the respondents on the ground of lack of supporting documents, when the claim is based on a GST Council decision which is a public document, is arbitrary and unsustainable? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the GST Council's decision is a public document and known to the respondents, thus no specific supporting documents were required to prove the change in tax regime. They contended that Clause C of the contract, concerning changes in indirect taxes due to GST law, mandates BSCL to incorporate such changes. The petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to reconsider their claim, offering to provide relevant documents and submit a fresh representation. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that they considered the petitioner's representations objectively and rightly rejected them. They did not rely on any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents.