2020 (2) TMI 1709 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking direction to the respondents to forthwith release the amount in respect of the tax paid by the petitioner under the GST law along with interest @ 18 percent - contention of the petitioner is that he has been repeatedly approaching the authorities concerned by raising his claim but till date his claim has not been responded to by the respondents - HELD THAT - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration two circulars referred to by the petitioner to support his claim i.e. circular dated 10.10.2018 and 21.12.2017 and further considering the fact that the claim raised by the petitioner till date has not been denied or disputed by the respondents by passing any order or rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the stage has not arisen for the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause. The petitioner may avail the same, provided the respondents may dispute the claim of the petitioner or reject his claim. Given the said facts and the pending representation of the petitioner before the respondents, let the respondents No.2 to 5 take a decision on the claim/representation that the petitioner has made so far as his claim for refund of GST is concerned at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of GST under a contract awarded before 01.07.2017 with subsequent changes in GST rates. Petitioner's grievance regarding non-release of tax amount paid under GST law along with interest. Opposing view by State counsel citing arbitration clause in the contract.

Analysis:

1. Claim for Refund of GST: The petitioner sought a writ or direction for the release of the tax amount paid under the GST law, highlighting the changes in GST rates from 18 percent to 12 percent. The petitioner referred to circulars by the State Govt. regarding refunds for taxes subsequently imposed. The petitioner's claim remained unanswered despite repeated approaches to the authorities concerned.

2. Arbitration Clause: The State counsel contended that the contract between the parties included an arbitration clause, suggesting that the petitioner should pursue arbitration for dispute resolution before seeking judicial intervention. The State argued that since the petitioner had not utilized the arbitration remedy, the writ petition was premature and not sustainable at that stage.

3. Judicial Decision: The Court considered the circulars cited by the petitioner and the lack of response from the respondents to the petitioner's claim. The Court noted that as the claim had not been rejected or disputed by the respondents, the petitioner was not yet required to invoke the arbitration clause. The Court directed the respondents to decide on the petitioner's claim for GST refund within 60 days from the date of the order. The petitioner was granted the liberty to pursue appropriate remedies based on the decision made by the respondents.

4. Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of based on the Court's directions to the respondents to address the petitioner's claim for GST refund promptly. The Court emphasized the importance of resolving the issue within a specified timeframe and allowed the petitioner to take further action based on the respondents' decision.