M/S. Pooja Construction vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court considered the limited relief sought by the petitioner, which was a direction to respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 to consider their representation for the refund of GST amount. The Court noted that the petitioner had been pursuing this matter since 2019, with the last representation dated August 2, 2022, and that no decision had been taken by the respondents. The submissions of the petitioner were not opposed by the respondents. Based on the documents submitted by the petitioner and the lack of opposition from the respondents, the Court disposed of the petition by directing respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 to take a decision on the petitioner's pending representation at the earliest, preferably within two months from the date of receiving a copy of the Court's order. No specific findings were made on the merits of the GST refund claim itself, as the petition was disposed of on the procedural aspect of considering the representation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Pooja Construction, a partnership firm, submitted a representation seeking a refund of GST amount deposited by them. This deposit was made in accordance with Clause 6.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The petitioner claims to have submitted representations since 2019, with the last one dated August 2, 2022. However, the respondents, Chhattisgarh State Medical Services Corporation Ltd. (respondents No. 2 to 4), had not taken any decision or passed any order on these representations. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for the respondents to consider and decide their pending representation within a specified timeframe.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a direction to respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner for the refund of GST amount, considering the delay in decision-making since 2019. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that despite submitting multiple representations, including the last one on August 2, 2022, the respondents have failed to take any decision. Therefore, a direction from the Court is necessary to compel the respondents to consider and decide the matter within a stipulated period. The petitioner relied on Annexures P-4, P-5, and P-8 as supporting documents. Respondents' Argument: The learned counsel for the respondents did not oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents.