M/S Goel Traders vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent no. 2 (Nagar Panchayat Patan) to consider the petitioner's representation dated February 27, 2023, at the earliest, preferably within 90 days from the receipt of the order. While deciding the representation, the respondent authority was expected to take into consideration similar decisions made by the State Government for contracts executed with the PWD, Irrigation Department, Water Resources Department, and other similar departments. The Court did not make a definitive finding on the entitlement to the refund itself but directed the authority to consider the claim sympathetically in light of the precedent set by other government departments. No specific provision of the GST Act was directly interpreted or applied to determine the refund entitlement; the decision was based on administrative consideration and parity.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Goel Traders, filed a writ petition 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 PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, had already decided to refund similar excess GST amounts. The petitioner had submitted a detailed representation to respondents 2 and 3 (Nagar Panchayat Patan and its Chief Municipal Officer) on February 27, 2023. The State's counsel acknowledged the pending representation and assured that an appropriate decision would be taken in accordance with the law.

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, particularly when similar claims have been considered by other government departments? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of equity and administrative consistency). Petitioner's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the State Government itself, through departments like PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, had already decided to refund excess GST arising from rate deviations. - They contended that there was no reason for the CG Housing Board (implied respondent through the State's action) to not adopt a similar stance and consider their refund claim. - Reliance was placed on the representation dated February 27, 2023, submitted to respondents 2 & 3. Revenue/State's Contentions: - The counsel for the State submitted that since the petitioner's representation was pending, an appropriate decision on the contract executed with the petitioner would be taken in accordance with law at the earliest.