Jitendra Kumar Mishra vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that no disputed question of facts were involved in the case, thus the petitioner could not be relegated to the Dispute Resolution Forum under the agreement. Following the parity with the Division Bench order dated December 12, 2024, passed in WP No. 39378 of 2024, the Court directed respondent No. 2 to pay the difference of GST amount to the petitioner at the rate of 6% from January 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022, within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. If payment was not made within this period, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of entitlement. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The ratio decidendi is that admitted liabilities concerning GST rate enhancements, especially when acknowledged by the paying entity and confirmed by the tax department, should be settled promptly without forcing the taxpayer to pursue lengthy alternative remedies, particularly when a precedent exists.

Facts

The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar Mishra, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to release the admitted liability of Rs. 13,44,825/- towards the difference in GST amount, along with 24% interest. The petitioner, engaged in construction work, had agreements with respondent No. 2, a public enterprise classified as a Government Entity. The GST rate applicable to the petitioner's services was enhanced from 12% to 18% (9% CGST & 9% SGST) effective from January 1, 2022. However, respondent No. 2 continued to pay bills with 12% GST, forcing the petitioner to pay the difference of 6%. Respondent No. 2 acknowledged this liability on September 26, 2022, but cited a lack of State Government approval for payment. The State GST Department confirmed the rate enhancement. The petitioner approached the High Court as an alternative remedy was not considered viable due to the absence of disputed facts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to release the admitted differential GST amount along with interest, considering the admitted liability and the State GST Department's confirmation of the rate change? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent No. 2 has admitted the liability to pay the differential GST amount of 6% from January 1, 2022, and that the State GST Department also confirms the rate enhancement. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench order dated December 12, 2024, in WP No. 39378 of 2024, which directed reimbursement of extra GST paid. The petitioner sought a mandamus for release of the admitted amount and interest. Revenue/State's contention: Respondents No. 2 & 3 raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and the availability of an alternative remedy under the Arbitration Act. The judgment does not record specific arguments from Respondent No. 4 (State GST Department) beyond confirming the rate enhancement.