M/S Dubey Goyal and Company Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 122 of 2024

¶5

M/s Dubey Goyal And Company A Class Contractor, Through Brijesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late C.M. Agrawal Aged About 62 Years, Proprietor, M/s Dubey Goyal And Company, 109 A Block 1st Floor, Crystal Arcade, Shankar Nagar, Pandari Road, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Executive Engineer (PMAY), Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Shri Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Ku. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer For Responders 2 & 3 : Smt. Preeti Yadav and Shri Rakshit

¶13

Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board

¶15

12.01.2024

¶16

1 . Heard.

¶17

2 . The limited relief that the petitioner seeks in the present writ petition is for an appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to decide the representation (Annexure-P/1) dated 22.12.2023 of the petitioner that the petitioner has made for the refund of excess GST that was required to be paid by the petitioner on the change of GST rate on works contract from 12% to 18% w.e.f. 18.07.2022.

¶18

2

¶19

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the State Govt. themselves in all other departments like; PWD, Water Resources, Irrigation etc., have already taken a decision for refund of the excess amount of GST that arose on account of deviation in the rate of GST payable. He further submits that there is no reason why the Municipal Corporation Charoda, Bhilai, District Durg also does not follow similar stand and consider the claim of petitioner for refund of excess GST. He submits that the petitioner has already made a detailed representation (Annexure-P/1) dated 22.12.2023 to the respondent No.2 in this regard, but the same has not been decided yet.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that although representation filed by the petitioner has to be considered by the respondent No.2 & 3 and while considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, she has no objection to allow the prayer.

¶21

5. Given the submission made by the counsel for the parties, the writ petition as of now stands disposed of directing the respondents No.2 & 3 to consider the representation (AnnexureP/1) dated 22.12.2023 of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. While taking a decision, the respondent authorities is expected to take into consideration similar decisions that the State Government has taken in respect of the contracts executed

¶22

3

¶23

by Contractors with other departments like; PWD, Irrigation Department, Water Resources Department etc.

¶24

6. In view of the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed

¶25

of.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE