Gayatri Ventures A Partnership Firm Having Its Office At Kadembari Nagar Dhamdha Road, Dur (C.G.) 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, raising the grievance as stated in the writ petition. The Court directed respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the 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 delve into the merits of the refund claim itself but facilitated the procedural process for its consideration. The specific amount in dispute was not recorded.

Facts

The petitioner, Gayatri Ventures, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking a direction for the respondents to decide their 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 government departments, such as Water Resources and Irrigation, had already decided to refund similar excess GST amounts. The petitioner had submitted a representation to respondent No. 2 (Executive Engineer, PWD Durg Division) on April 21, 2023. The State counsel contended that the petitioner had not submitted a representation to respondent No. 3 (Chhattisgarh Road Development Corporation Limited), 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, and if so, what is the procedure for claiming such refund? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since other State Government departments (Water Resources, Irrigation) have decided to refund excess GST arising from rate changes, the Public Works Department should also adopt a similar stance. They relied on the principle of parity and consistency in government action. They submitted a representation to respondent No. 2 and sought a direction for its decision. Revenue/State's contention: The State counsel submitted that the petitioner had not submitted a representation to respondent No. 3, who is also a competent authority to consider the claim. They did not argue against the merits of the refund claim itself but highlighted a procedural deficiency.