R B Chopra Freighters PVT LTD Th Director Rohit Chopra vs. Ut Of Ladakh Th Commissioner Secretary, Public Works (R And B) Department, Leh, And Others

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without addressing the merits of the case. It directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for reimbursement of the additional 6% GST. This consideration is to be made in terms of the decision of the committee of officers headed by the Chief Engineer, PW (R&B)/PMGSY, and also in light of the communication dated July 11, 2024, from the Deputy Secretary to the Ladakh Administration, Public Works (R&B) Department. This communication had called upon the Chief Engineers to reimburse any additional 6% GST deducted by DDOs due to the rate change from 12% to 18% effective July 18, 2022. The respondents were given a period of six weeks from the date of service of the order to comply. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court granted a specific direction for consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, R B Chopra Freighters Pvt. Ltd., executed several works for the Government of UT of Ladakh under contracts awarded prior to July 13, 2022. A Central Tax (Rate) notification issued on that date enhanced the GST rate from 12% to 18%. Following representations from contractors, a committee headed by the Chief Engineer, PW (R&B)/PMGSY, decided on February 27, 2024, to reimburse 6% of the GST deducted due to this rate change. The petitioner claims this decision was not implemented, leading to a representation on December 24, 2024, which remained unaddressed for over eight months. This writ petition was filed seeking a direction for consideration of the representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation for reimbursement of the enhanced GST amount in light of the decision taken by the committee of officers headed by the Chief Engineer, PW (R&B)/PMGSY. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a decision was taken by a committee of officers to reimburse 6% of the enhanced GST. However, this decision was not implemented, and their subsequent representation remained unaddressed. They sought a direction for the respondents to consider their representation in light of this prior decision and within a specified timeframe. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. The court disposed of the petition based on the petitioner's submissions and the nature of the relief sought.