Bharat Builders Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Chhattisgarh High Court held that petition seeking release/reimbursement of GST cannot be entertained since relief of compensations sought is contingent upon the resolution of the disputed question of facts raised, and these questions cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Facts- The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Balodabazar (Chhattisgarh), whereby the respondent authorities have rejected the petitioner’s representation. It is contended that in the said order, the respondents have stated that as per the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), all liabilities towards Sales Tax, Royalty, Excise Duty, Turnover Tax, etc. were to be borne by the contractor, and the department would not be liable for any such statutory payments. It was further mentioned that for tenders issued after 01.07.2017, no fresh instructions had been issued by the Department regarding GST reimbursement.
Conclusion- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corpornation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Others v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) & Another has held that it is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court.
