M/S Puneet Enterprises vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable as no disputed question of facts were involved, and thus the petitioner could not be relegated to the dispute resolution forum. The Court found that the GST rate had indeed been enhanced from 12% to 18% effective January 1, 2022, as per Notification No. 15/2021 CT(R). Respondent No. 2, being a Government Entity, was liable to pay this enhanced rate. The Court noted that respondent No. 2 had accepted the liability to pay the additional 6% GST from January 1, 2022. Following the parity with a previous Division Bench order in WP No. 39378 of 2024, the Court directed respondent No. 2 to pay the difference of GST amount to the petitioner at 6% for the period from January 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022, within three months of receiving the order. Failure to comply would entitle the petitioner to interest at 6% per annum from the date of entitlement. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Puneet Enterprises, a company engaged in construction work, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct respondent No. 2 (a public enterprise) to release the admitted liability of Rs. 1,67,000/- towards the difference in GST amount, along with 18% interest. The petitioner was awarded work by respondent No. 2. Initially, GST was levied at 12% until December 31, 2021. Subsequently, Notification No. 15/2021 CT(R) enhanced the GST rate to 18% effective January 1, 2022. The petitioner's grievance was that respondent No. 2 continued to pay bills with 12% GST, while the petitioner paid 18%. Respondent No. 2, vide a letter dated September 26, 2022, acknowledged the liability to pay the additional 6% GST from January 1, 2022, but stated that approval from the State Government was pending. The State GST Department confirmed the enhanced rate was applicable and payable by respondent No. 2.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the availability of an alternative remedy under the Arbitration Act, as contended by respondents No. 2 & 3. 2. Whether respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the difference in GST at 6% for the period from January 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022, to the petitioner. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that no disputed question of facts was involved, making the writ petition maintainable and that they should not be relegated to the dispute resolution forum. They relied on a previous Division Bench order of the High Court passed in WP No. 39378 of 2024, which directed reimbursement of extra GST paid along with interest. Revenue/State's arguments: Respondents No. 2 & 3 raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and the availability of an alternative remedy under the Arbitration Act. The State GST Department (respondent No. 4) agreed that the GST rate had been enhanced and was payable by respondent No. 2.