J.Ambrose vs. The Director

Held

The Court held that the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the second respondent (Administrative Officer) was a non-speaking order and could not be sustained. The Court found that the order did not consider the GST notifications cited by the petitioner and mechanically rejected the claim without addressing the rate of GST applicable on the date of the award of the works contract. The Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order considering all aspects within four weeks. The writ petition was allowed.

Facts

The petitioner, J. Ambrose, was awarded a works contract by CSIR - Central Electrochemical Research Institute (CECRI) for minor repair and renovation works. The petitioner paid GST at 18% on the contract. However, CECRI sanctioned GST only at 12%. The petitioner sought reimbursement of the difference of 6% GST, amounting to Rs. 1,21,739.28, citing that the GST rate was increased from 12% to 18% after the tender notification but before the award of the work. The Administrative Officer of CECRI rejected the petitioner's claim via an order dated 20.06.2024, stating that the GST difference did not arise for tenders whose last date of receipt was after 18.07.2022. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Administrative Officer, rejecting the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of the difference in GST, is a non-speaking order and contrary to law? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and interpretation of GST notifications). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, mechanically rejecting the claim without considering relevant GST notifications. The petitioner argued that the GST rate was increased from 12% to 18% by Notification No. 3 of 2022 Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022, after the tender notification but before the award of the work order. Therefore, the petitioner should be reimbursed the difference. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that the applicability of GST difference does not arise for tenders whose last date of receipt was after 18.07.2022. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents beyond this statement.