J Ambrose vs. The Director

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the second respondent was unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The Court found that the order was a non-speaking order and did not consider the notifications submitted by the petitioner regarding the GST rates applicable at different times. The Court reasoned that the second respondent mechanically rejected the claim without addressing the petitioner's contentions about the GST rate applicable on the date of the award of the works contract. The Court's ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must pass reasoned orders that address the specific contentions raised by the parties, especially when supported by relevant statutory notifications. 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 from the date of receipt of the order. The issue of reimbursement of the balance amount of Rs. 3,35,745 along with interest was left for fresh consideration by the respondent.

Facts

The petitioner, J. Ambrose, was awarded a works contract by CSIR - Central Electrochemical Research Institute (CECRI) through Work Order No. 14/2022 dated 16.12.2022. The petitioner completed the work and received payments. The petitioner paid GST at 18% on the contract. However, the respondents sanctioned GST only at 12%. The petitioner sought reimbursement of the difference of 6% GST, amounting to Rs. 3,35,745, along with interest. The second respondent, the Administrative Officer of CSIR-CECRI, rejected this 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 challenged this order by way of a writ petition, arguing it was a non-speaking order that failed to consider relevant notifications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of the GST difference, is a speaking order and has considered the relevant notifications? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 was a non-speaking order, mechanically rejecting the claim without considering the notifications submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the rate of GST applicable on the date of award of the works contract should have been considered. The petitioner relied on Notification No. 11 of 2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 read with Notification No. 20 of 2017, Central Tax (Rate) dated 22.08.2017, which stipulated a 12% GST rate, and Notification No. 3 of 2022 Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022, which increased it to 18% after the tender notification. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the applicability of GST difference did not arise for tenders whose last date of receipt was after 18.07.2022. The judgment does not record any other specific arguments from the respondents.