M/S Goel Traders vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2, the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, to consider the petitioner's representation dated February 27, 2023, at the earliest, preferably within 60 days from the receipt of the order. While deciding, the respondent authority was directed to take into consideration similar decisions made by the State Government for contracts executed with the Public Works Department (PWD), Irrigation Department, Water Resources Department, and other such departments. The Court did not make a definitive finding on the entitlement to the refund itself but mandated the consideration of the representation in light of existing administrative practices in other departments. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, but the final decision on the refund was left to the respondent authority.

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 state government departments, such as PWD, Water Resources, and Irrigation, had already decided to refund excess GST in similar situations. The petitioner had submitted a detailed representation to respondents 2 and 3 (Chhattisgarh Housing Board and its Executive Engineer) on February 27, 2023. Respondent No. 2 acknowledged the pending representation and stated 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 on works contracts due to a change in the GST rate from 12% to 18% effective July 18, 2022, particularly when similar claims have been considered by other state government departments? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of fairness and administrative consistency). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the Chhattisgarh Housing Board should follow the precedent set by other state government departments (PWD, Water Resources, Irrigation) which have decided to refund excess GST arising from rate changes. They argued there was no valid reason for the Housing Board to deviate from this practice and deny their refund claim, which was submitted via representation dated February 27, 2023. Respondents' Arguments: Respondent No. 2 (Chhattisgarh Housing Board) submitted that the petitioner's representation was pending and that an appropriate decision would be taken in accordance with the law at the earliest.