9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 410 - HC - GSTInaction on the part of the respondents in not refunding the amount of GST collected from the petitioner in the course of the execution of the contract that was awarded to the petitioner - grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of repeated approach being made to the respondents, there is a total inaction on the part of the respondents so far as refund of GST is concerned - HELD THAT - The writ petition as of now stands disposed of directing the State Authorities to immediately process the claim of the petitioner so far as refund of GST is concerned, after due verification of facts and also the entitlement part of the petitioner is concerned. Let an appropriate decision be taken keeping in view the earlier order of the Central Government dated 28.01.2020 and 06.06.2018 (Annexure-P/2) and all subsequent orders also passed in this regard by the Central Government. Let an appropriate decision be taken within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Petition disposed off.
In the case before the Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, the petitioner sought redress for the respondents' failure to refund the Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected during the execution of a contract awarded at pre-GST rates. The petitioner argued that the Central Government had issued circulars mandating refunds for GST paid on contracts executed before or after GST implementation, provided that contractors submitted proof of payment.
Despite repeated requests, the petitioner claimed inaction from the respondents regarding the GST refund. The State's counsel acknowledged the petitioner's claim and stated that it would be evaluated based on the Central Government's circulars and orders. The court ordered the State Authorities to process the petitioner's GST refund claim promptly, considering the Central Government's orders dated 28.01.2020 and 06.06.2018, along with any subsequent relevant orders. The court emphasized that a decision should be made within 90 days from receiving the order. The writ petition and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
