M/S Mool Chand Jain Pvt Ltd Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 20801 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

M/S Mool Chand Jain Pvt Ltd Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2024

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                                           1                           WP-27017-2023
                             IN    THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT GWALIOR
                                                     BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                                        &
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
                                                 ON August 1, 2024
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 27017 of 2023
                           M/S MOOL CHAND JAIN PVT LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR MOOL
                                               CHAND JAIN
                                                  Versus
                                THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                               Shri Ashutosh Ajay Awasthi and Shri Nikhil Rai, Advocates for the
                         petitioner.
                               Shri Vivek Khedkar, Additional Advocate General for the
                         Respondents/State.

                                                             ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

Petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking direction from the respondents to consider his representation submitted on September 11, 2023,

in relation to refund of GST.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are as follows:

(i) The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of construction. The petitioner entered into a work contract with the Public Works Department on June 10, 2015. At that time, Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and Finance Act, 1994, were in force. The Central Government introduced

2 WP-27017-2023 GST w.e.f. 1.7.2017. According to the petitioner, from 2017-18 until the completion of work in 2020-21, the respondents' department wrongly deducted CGST and SGST from running bills, which is evident from the tax invoice (Annexure P/3). petitioner is not liable to pay GST in view of terms and conditions of the works contract which was entered into prior to 1.7.2017. petitioner preferred a representation to the respondents for return of GST after adjusting the VAT. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in Sri Chandrashekharaiah vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.9721/2019 (T-RES ). Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.No. 28124/2018. Vide order dated 12.12.2018, this Court directed the contractor to seek redressal as per mechanism provided in the agreement before the competent Authority.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Chapter XI of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the 'CGST Act') deals with refunds of tax. Admittedly, the petitioner had completed the work from 2017 until 2021 after the applicability of the GST Act w.e.f. 1.7.2017. The petitioner must have purchased raw materials to do the awarded work and availed input credit. According to the petitioner, if GST was not liable to be paid and the same has erroneously been recovered and deposited by the Public Works Department with the GST Department, the petitioner may submit a claim under Section 54 of the GST Act. The competent authority shall examine whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund or not. The complete procedure for refunding tax is provided under Section 54 of the CGST Act and Chapter X of the CGST Rules, 2017.

3 WP-27017-2023 Therefore, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to approach the competent authority for a refund. Apart from that, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents, he may raise a dispute under the Dispute Resolution System before the competent authority and thereafter before Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran. The writ petition is not maintainable before this Court.

Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

                                  (VIVEK RUSIA)                              (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
                                      JUDGE                                          JUDGE


                         (and)