Apex Tarmac PVT.LTD. Through Its Authorized Signatory Shailesh Shah vs. The State Of M. P.

Held

The High Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the applicability of GST to ongoing contracts or the refund thereof. Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed and comprehensive representation before Respondent No. 3 (presumably a GST authority) within 30 days. If such a representation is filed, Respondent No. 3 is directed to consider and decide it in accordance with the law by passing a speaking order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within 60 days from the date of filing the representation. The petitioner is free to raise all grounds and submissions before this authority. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the decision of Respondent No. 3, if aggrieved, in accordance with law. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the court opted for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

Facts

The petitioner, Apex Tarmac Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking reimbursement of GST paid on an ongoing contract. The petitioner contended that GST, introduced on July 1, 2017, should not apply to contracts that were already in progress before its implementation, and therefore, the GST paid should be refunded. Alternatively, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider their representation and claim in accordance with the law. The respondents filed a preliminary objection, stating that the petitioner did not approach them after the implementation of GST. The High Court noted the respondents' submission that the petitioner had not approached them post-GST implementation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, which came into effect from July 1, 2017, is applicable to ongoing contracts that were in existence prior to its implementation, and if not, whether the GST paid on such contracts is liable for refund, as per the petitioner's contention. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that GST should not apply to ongoing contracts initiated before July 1, 2017, and the amounts paid as GST should be refunded. They relied on the principle that new tax laws generally do not have retrospective application to existing contractual obligations unless specifically provided. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, while filing a preliminary objection, stated that the petitioner did not approach them after the implementation of GST. The judgment does not record any specific legal arguments from the respondents justifying the levy of GST on ongoing contracts or opposing the refund claim on merits.