Facts of the Case

Deepak Pandey, a Class A civil contractor based in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, against the State of Chhattisgarh (through the Department of Urban Administration & Development), the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, and the Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Raipur. He sought a direction to the respondent authorities to decide his representation dated 20.11.2023 seeking a refund of the excess GST that he was required to pay on account of the change in the GST rate on works contracts from 12% to 18% with effect from 18.07.2022.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Municipal Corporation, Raipur was obliged to decide the petitioner's pending representation for refund of excess GST arising from the mid-contract rate revision on works contracts.
  2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to parity with other State departments that had already decided to refund similar excess GST to their contractors.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The State Government, through other departments such as PWD, Water Resources and Irrigation, had already decided to refund contractors the excess GST that arose on account of the deviation in the GST rate from 12% to 18% on works contracts.
  • There was no reason why the Municipal Corporation, Raipur should not follow the same stand and consider the petitioner's claim for refund of excess GST.
  • A detailed representation dated 20.11.2023 had already been made to the respondents in this regard but remained undecided.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Counsel for the State submitted that the representation filed by the petitioner had to be considered by the respondents, and, while considering the limited prayer made, raised no objection to the Court directing such consideration.

Court Order/Findings

  • Given the submissions of both parties, the Court held that the respondents must decide the petitioner's representation for refund of the excess GST caused by the works-contract rate change, having regard to similar decisions already taken by the State Government in respect of contracts executed with other departments such as PWD, Irrigation and Water Resources.
  • The writ petition was disposed of, directing respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 20.11.2023 at the earliest, preferably within an outer limit of 90 days from receipt of the order.
  • No independent finding was recorded on the petitioner's entitlement to the refund itself; the disposal was limited to a direction for consideration.

Important Clarification

Where a State Government has adopted a policy of refunding contractors the excess GST caused by a mid-contract rate revision (such as the works-contract rate change from 12% to 18% effective 18.07.2022) in respect of some departments, a contractor dealing with another department or local body can seek a direction for parity in consideration. Courts will typically direct consideration of such a representation within a fixed time frame, expecting the deciding authority to have regard to how comparable claims were treated elsewhere in government, rather than grant the refund itself or decide entitlement in the writ proceeding.

Sections Involved

  • Notification revising the GST rate on works contract services from 12% to 18% effective 18.07.2022, issued under the rate-notification powers of the CGST Act, 2017 — the change giving rise to the refund claim.

Decision – In Favour of

This is a disposal with directions rather than a decision on merits. The petitioner obtained a direction requiring the Municipal Corporation to decide his refund representation within 90 days, having regard to the treatment given by other State departments, but the Court made no finding on his actual entitlement to the refund. It would be inaccurate to record this as an outright win on the substantive GST rate-change dispute; it is more accurately described as a disposal favouring the Assessee only in the procedural sense of compelling a time-bound decision on an otherwise stalled representation.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
  • Case No.: WPC No. 5064 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
  • Decision Date: 21 December 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of with direction to consider representation

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.