M/S Bansal Constuction Company Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5300 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

M/S Bansal Constuction Company Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2024

Author: Rohit Arya

Bench: Rohit Arya

                                                      1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                                                      &
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                          ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 1723 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          M/S BANSAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THROUGH ITS
                          PARTNER SHRI JITENDER BANSAL S/O LATE SHRI M.R.
                          BANSAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          BUSINESS, R/o SECTOR 31-32, A HOUSING BOARD
                          COLONY JHARASA ROAD, GURGOUN DISTRICT
                          GURGOUN (HARYANA)

                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI R.B.S. TOMAR-ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
                                BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P. )

                          2.    THE STATE OF MP THROUGH ITS ADDITIONAL
                                CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WATER
                                R E S O U R C E , VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
                                SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL
                                TAX DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    THE    COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX
                                DEPARTM ENT MOTI BUNGALOW COMPOUND
                                M.G. ROAD NEAR GANDHI HALL INDORE
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    THE SUB DIVIONAL OFFICER KOLARAS DISTRICT
                                SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 2/22/2024
1:52:44 PM
                                                         2
                          6.    CHIEF MUNICPAL OFFICER, NAGAR PARISAD
                                KOLARS DIST. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI M.P.S. RAGHUWANSHI-AAG FOR RESPONDENT/STATE )

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Rohit Arya
                          passed the following:
                                                               ORDER

The instant writ petition is filed with limited relief in the form of direction for decision on pending representation, whereunder petitioner has sought refund of GST amount recovered after completion of work, in light of the number of judgments of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court; one such judgment is

W.P.No.10282/2021 decided on 23.06.2021. According to him, in the light of the circular of State Government, the GST was not applicable as on the date of the issuance of NIT, i.e. 27.11.2016 and work order was issued on 03.07.2017 whereas GST Act came into force on 01.07.2017.

2. The State Government has issued Circulars dated 05.08.2017 and 14.11.2018 whereunder it is declared that GST shall not be applicable in a contract for which NIT was issued prior to coming into force of GST Act, i.e., 01.07.2017. Hence, according to the petitioner, the petitioner deserves to be extended the benefit of the said circular in the context of relief sought for.

3. Shri Mody, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State does not oppose the aforesaid prayer.

4. We refrain from commenting upon the merits of the contentions so advanced, however, in terms of the order referred to, we hereby direct the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. The directions contained in the said order (W.P.No.10282/2021) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the case in hand.

                            (ROHIT ARYA)       (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
                               JUDGE                   JUDGE

                          (Dubey)