Ashok Kumar Dubey vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Secretary Rural Development Department

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Dubey, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court seeking a direction for the refund of the differential Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid on three agreements. The petitioner contended that the applicable GST rate during the relevant period was 4%, but 12% was deducted from his bills. He had made several representations to the respondent authorities, including the State of Jharkhand and various engineering departments, but no decision was taken. The total value of the works under the three agreements was Rs. 21,37,13,000/-, Rs. 1,21,92,000/-, and Rs. 1,58,36,319/-.

Held

The High Court, without entering into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 2 (The Chief Engineer, State Rural Road Development Authority). Upon receipt of this fresh representation, Respondent No. 2 is directed to call for the relevant records, provide the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing, and then take an appropriate informed decision regarding the refund of the differential GST amount. This decision is to be taken within a period of three months from the date of filing of the fresh representation. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities should address grievances through proper representation and due process, with a defined timeline for decision-making, rather than immediately resorting to judicial intervention for initial redressal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the differential GST amount deducted from his bills at a rate of 12% instead of the allegedly applicable rate of 4% for the works executed under Agreement No. JH17PKS007 dated 12.12.2017, Agreement No. JH17SP04 dated 11.10.2017, and Package No. JH14AEC055 dated 06.10.2018. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the GST rate applicable to his contracts was 4%, and the deduction of 12% was erroneous, entitling him to a refund of the excess amount paid. He relied on his representations made to the authorities. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the State respondents. The Court proceeded without entering into the merits of the case.