Case: Gayatri Ventures v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
Petition: WPC No. 3153 of 2023
Category of Dispute: Refund of excess GST (Works Contract)
Date of Judgment: 14 July 2023
Relevant Sections: Section 54 of the CGST Act (Refund provisions), Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Facts (Paras 1–3)
The petitioner, Gayatri Ventures, a partnership firm engaged in works contract with the Public Works Department (PWD), was impacted by the revision of GST rates on works contracts from 12% to 18% effective 18.07.2022. Owing to this change, the petitioner ended up paying excess GST and sought a refund of the difference. Representations were made to the PWD authorities dated 15.03.2023 and 21.04.2023, highlighting that other departments such as Water Resources and Irrigation had already sanctioned refunds in similar situations. However, the petitioner’s claim remained unattended by the PWD.
Questions Before the Court
-
Whether the petitioner’s claim for refund of excess GST on account of upward revision of GST rate ought to be considered by the PWD on the same lines as other departments?
-
Whether a direction can be issued for timely disposal of the petitioner’s refund representation?
Observations (Paras 4–6)
The Court noted that the petitioner had not directly approached respondent no.3 (Chhattisgarh Road Development Corporation Limited), which was also a competent authority to examine the refund claim. The Court further observed that the petitioner’s request was not for adjudication of refund by the High Court, but only for consideration of its representation. Since parity in treatment across government departments is a guiding principle, the PWD could not arbitrarily avoid consideration when other departments had already allowed similar refunds.
Judgment (Para 6)
The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondents no.2 and 3. The Court directed that upon such filing, the respondents must consider and decide the claim within 60 days. Importantly, while deciding, the respondents must take into account the refund decisions already implemented by other State departments in similar cases.
Table of Referred Cases
This judgment did not explicitly cite earlier judicial precedents; it relied on parity of departmental practice within the State Government.
Between Fine Lines
For contractors executing works contracts with government departments, this judgment emphasizes uniformity in tax treatment. Where one department has allowed refund of excess GST due to a rate change, other departments cannot arbitrarily deny the same. The takeaway is that refund claims must be considered promptly and in parity with established departmental practice.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
