Facts of the Case

M/s Sanjay Singhi, a contractor, filed this writ petition against the Union of India and the State of Chhattisgarh's Public Works Department (PWD) authorities, claiming entitlement to the difference in Goods and Services Tax paid by him after issuance of a work order, pursuant to a circular dated 13.07.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The petitioner claimed he had been awarded a works contract before the circular but had to bear an increased GST burden thereafter.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the differential GST amount, arising from a rate change after the tender was awarded, pursuant to the Ministry of Finance circular dated 13.07.2022 and Clause 7.2 of the tender document.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Contended that he was entitled to the difference in GST paid, following the change in tax rate/treatment introduced by the Ministry of Finance's circular dated 13.07.2022, and by reference to Clause 7.2 of the tender documentation.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Objected that a copy of the petitioner's representation on this claim had not been placed on record, though counsel for the State did not object to the limited relief of directing consideration of a pending representation.

Court Order / Findings

  • Considering the nature of the grievance, based on the Government of India notification/circular and Clause 7.2 of the tender document, disposed of the petition without entering into the merits of the petitioner's claim.
  • Permitted the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the concerned PWD authorities (respondents No. 4 to 7).
  • Directed that upon receiving such representation, the authorities decide it strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, keeping in mind the Ministry of Finance circular dated 13.07.2022 and Clause 7.2 of the tender documents.

Important Clarification

The Court expressly disposed of this matter 'without entering into merits' — it did not decide whether the petitioner was actually entitled to the GST rate-differential reimbursement he claimed. The outcome is purely procedural: a direction that the PWD authorities decide his representation within eight weeks, with all substantive questions about entitlement left open for that decision.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — GST rate treatment referenced via the Ministry of Finance circular dated 13.07.2022
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction

Decision – In Favour of

No merits decided in favour of either side — the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner's representation on the GST differential be decided by the PWD authorities within eight weeks, keeping the relevant circular and tender clause in view.

Case Details

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; WPC No. 3650 of 2023; Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu; Date of Order: 16.08.2023.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.