Firstmove Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The Chhattisgarh High Court addressed a petition filed by Firstmove Logistics (P.) Ltd. against the Union of India and South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) concerning the retrospective revision of Goods and Services Tax (GST) reimbursement rates. Firstmove Logistics, a coal transportation company, argued that SECL’s decision to apply revised normative rates from 2023 retroactively to payments made since 2018 resulted in undue deductions from their due payments. The core dispute centered on Clause 5 of an order dated January 17, 2023, which stemmed from a resolution made during the 158th Meeting of the Committee of Functional Directors (Co FD) of SECL on January 14, 2023, and a subsequent order dated July 4, 2023, issued by the Deputy Manager (Finance), Gevra Project, SECL. The petitioner sought the court’s intervention to quash these orders, direct a recalculation of the normative rates to include the previously excluded GST component, and ensure payments were made according to the original Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). They also requested a 12% interest on delayed payments.
During the court proceedings, Firstmove Logistics’ counsel stated that the company was awarded a coal transportation contract in 2015, with payment based on normative rates set by SECL. The petitioner contended that while payments were initially made according to these rates, the 2023 revision, applied retrospectively, led to deductions that were deemed arbitrary. The petitioner’s counsel indicated that they would submit a representation to the respondent authorities, seeking a directive for a timely decision. The respondents’ counsel, representing SECL and the Union of India, did not object to the petitioner’s request for a direction to consider the representation. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation. The court further instructed the concerned authorities to decide the representation within three months, in accordance with the law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claims.
