M/S Gordhandas Gobindram A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to approach respondents No. 2 to 5 with a fresh claim and necessary proof of the additional tax liability incurred due to the introduction of GST. The petitioner was directed to submit this proof within one week. The respondents were then directed to scrutinize the claim and take a decision within 90 days from the date of receipt of the claim, keeping in mind the State Government's order dated October 10, 2018. The Court's decision was influenced by the State Government's policy and a previous High Court order in a similar matter. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, but rather directed a procedural path for resolution.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Gordhandas Gobindram, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of additional tax liability incurred due to the introduction of GST law effective from July 1, 2017. This liability arose from contracts awarded prior to the GST regime. The petitioner relied on a State Government policy decision dated October 10, 2018, which allowed for reimbursement of such additional tax for pre-GST contracts. They also cited a previous High Court order in a similar case, WPT No. 94 of 2020 (M/s D.A. Enterprises v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), which was allowed on November 17, 2022. The State counsel indicated that the petitioner's claim would be considered if they furnished a fresh claim with proof of the additional tax liability.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of additional tax liability incurred on contracts awarded prior to July 1, 2017, in light of the State Government's policy decision dated October 10, 2018? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to reimbursement of the additional tax liability incurred due to the GST implementation on contracts awarded before July 1, 2017. They relied on the State Government's policy decision dated October 10, 2018, and the High Court's order in M/s D.A. Enterprises v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPT No. 94 of 2020), which dealt with identical facts. Respondents' contention: The State counsel submitted that the petitioner's claim would be considered if they furnished a fresh claim along with all relevant proof of the additional tax liability incurred and documents supporting the additional payment required due to GST. They indicated that the claim would be processed in terms of the State Government's order dated October 10, 2018.