M/S Bansal Constuction Company Through Its Partner Shri Jitender Bansal vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court, without commenting on the merits of the contentions, directed the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner sought a limited relief in the form of a direction for the decision on their pending representation for a refund of GST. The Court referred to a previous judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.10282/2021, decided on 23.06.2021, and stated that the directions contained in that order shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the present case. The core of the petitioner's argument revolved around the applicability of GST based on the NIT date and the subsequent State Government circulars. The respondents' non-opposition indicated an acceptance of the petitioner's claim for consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bansal Construction Company, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the decision on their pending representation for a refund of GST amount recovered after the completion of work. The petitioner contended that GST was not applicable to their contract as the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on 27.11.2016, prior to the GST Act coming into force on 01.07.2017. The work order was issued on 03.07.2017. The petitioner relied on State Government Circulars dated 05.08.2017 and 14.11.2018, which declared that GST would not be applicable to contracts for which NIT was issued before 01.07.2017. The respondents, the State of Madhya Pradesh and its various departments and officials, were represented by the Additional Advocate General.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of GST recovered on a contract where the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued prior to the commencement of the GST Act, 2017, in light of the State Government's circulars? The petitioner argued that the GST Act came into force on 01.07.2017, but the NIT for their contract was issued on 27.11.2016, and the work order on 03.07.2017. They relied on State Government Circulars dated 05.08.2017 and 14.11.2018, which stipulated that GST would not be applicable to contracts initiated before 01.07.2017. Therefore, the petitioner claimed they should be extended the benefit of these circulars and be refunded the GST amount recovered. The respondents, through the Additional Advocate General, did not oppose the petitioner's prayer.