Facts of the Case

The petitioner, A.P. Nirman Limited, a company through its Director Mr. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur against the State of Chhattisgarh's Water Resources Department and its officers, challenging their inaction on the petitioner's claim for refund of the additional tax burden arising from introduction of the GST regime. The petitioner, a civil contractor, had entered into an agreement with the State Government for execution of civil works under which it was contractually bound to bear all applicable taxes at the rates prevailing at the time of contracting. Following the introduction of the new GST law, the petitioner became liable to pay certain additional taxes over and above what had been factored into the agreement. The petitioner made repeated representations to the State authorities seeking reimbursement of this additional burden, relying on an earlier order of the same Court in WPC 460/2020 (Manish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh), but no decision had been taken on the representation.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the respondent authorities were obliged to take a decision on the petitioner's pending representation for refund of the additional tax burden caused by the introduction of GST on a pre-existing works contract.
  2. Whether the precedent in Manish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC 460/2020) entitled the petitioner to the same limited relief.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Under the rules and regulations governing the field, the respondent authorities are obliged to refund the additional tax burden suffered by the petitioner on account of the introduction of the GST regime.
  • Despite repeated representations made to the State Authorities seeking such refund, no decision had been taken till date.
  • An order passed in WPC 460/2020, Manish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh, granted similar relief on comparable facts, and the petitioner sought parity.

Respondent's Arguments

  • To the limited relief sought by the petitioner — namely, a direction that a decision be taken on the pending representation — the State counsel raised no objection.

Court Order/Findings

  • Since the State did not object to the limited relief sought, the Court proceeded to grant it.
  • The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project (respondent No. 2), to take a decision on the petitioner's representation for refund of the additional tax burden, preferably within 60 days from receipt of the order, having due regard to the applicable rules, regulations, guidelines and general conditions of the contract.

Important Clarification

  • Civil contractors bound by pre-GST works contracts making them responsible for 'all taxes' can seek a mandamus directing the contracting authority to decide their claim for reimbursement of the additional GST burden, relying on the precedent set in Manish Pipes Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC 460/2020).
  • The Court did not decide entitlement to the refund on merits — it merely directed the concerned authority to take a decision on the pending representation within a fixed time frame, applying the relevant contractual and regulatory framework.
  • This is procedural, mandamus-type relief rather than a substantive ruling on liability for the additional GST-era tax burden on works contracts entered into before the GST regime came into force.

Sections Involved

  • Goods and Services Tax law, 2017 — the new indirect tax regime whose introduction is stated to have imposed an additional tax burden on the petitioner's pre-existing works contract.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction invoked to compel a decision on the pending administrative representation.

Decision – In Favour of

The petition was disposed of with directions, granting procedural relief in favour of the Assessee (Petitioner) — a time-bound direction to decide the refund representation — without the Court itself deciding whether the additional tax burden is actually refundable.

Related Case Laws

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

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
  • Case No.: WPT No. 246 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
  • Decision Date: 19 October 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of with direction to decide representation for refund of additional GST tax burden

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.