Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the State Authorities to immediately process the petitioner's claim for the refund of GST. This processing is to be undertaken after due verification of facts and the petitioner's entitlement. The Court emphasized that the decision should be made keeping in view the State Government's earlier order dated October 10, 2018, and all subsequent relevant orders. The State Authorities were also directed to consider the petitioner's contention that GST has been refunded in many similar cases. The Court set an outer limit of 90 days from the receipt of the order for the State Authorities to take an appropriate decision. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal, a proprietor of a company, filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the inaction of the respondents (State of Chhattisgarh and its Public Works Department officials) in refunding Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected from him. The petitioner's contract was awarded during the pre-GST regime, which commenced on July 1, 2017. The State Government had issued a circular stating that contractors who paid GST on contracts executed before July 1, 2017, would be refunded upon producing certificates of GST payment. The petitioner contended that despite repeated approaches, the respondents failed to process his refund claim. The State counsel indicated that the claim would be considered subject to verification and adherence to relevant government circulars.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of GST paid on contracts awarded prior to the implementation of the GST regime on July 1, 2017, based on the State Government's circulars? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and applicability of government circulars and contractual terms). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he is entitled to a refund of GST paid on contracts executed before July 1, 2017, as per the State Government's circulars. He highlighted the government's own practice of refunding GST in similar cases and expressed grievance over the respondents' inaction despite his repeated representations. Revenue/State's contention: The State counsel submitted that the petitioner's claim would be decided at the earliest, subject to verification of facts and whether the claim falls within the scope of the circulars and orders issued by the State Government concerning refunds for pre-GST regime contracts.