GST Refund Denied: Chhattisgarh HC Refuses to Interfere in ₹11.76 Lakh Reimbursement Dispute [Read Order]
The Bench observed that determining whether GST reimbursement was payable required evaluation of the contract terms, tender conditions, and departmental instructions issues unsuitable for summary adjudication through a writ petition.
![GST Refund Denied: Chhattisgarh HC Refuses to Interfere in ₹11.76 Lakh Reimbursement Dispute [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/11/01/2101525-gst-refund-denied-chhattisgarh-hc-reimbursement-dispute-taxscan.webp "GST Refund Denied: Chhattisgarh HC Refuses to Interfere in ₹11.76 Lakh Reimbursement Dispute [Read Order]")
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition which sought reimbursement of ₹11.76 lakh towards Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) from the Public Health Engineering Department. The firm, M/s Bharat Builders a Delhi-based proprietorship, challenged a departmental letter dated November 26, 2024, rejecting its claim for GST refund on the ground that the contractor was...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition which sought reimbursement of ₹11.76 lakh towards Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) from the Public Health Engineering Department.
The firm, M/s Bharat Builders a Delhi-based proprietorship, challenged a departmental letter dated November 26, 2024, rejecting its claim for GST refund on the ground that the contractor was responsible for all tax liabilities under the terms of the tender.
The petitioner contended that the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued after the introduction of GST and that departmental instructions and corrigenda provided for separate reimbursement of GST amounts. It was argued that the rejection order ignored these provisions and misrepresented facts by wrongly stating that the tender was issued before July 1, 2017.
GST Litigation Secrets – Winning Strategies from Real Cases! Click here
The State, however, defended the decision, submitting that the tender conditions clearly required the contractor to bear all taxes, including GST, and that the petitioner had willingly accepted these terms.
The State further argued that the writ petition involved factual disputes relating to the contract and interpretation of departmental circulars, which could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction.
After hearing both sides, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that the matter involved disputed questions of fact that could not be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court stated several Supreme Court precedents including Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das (1999), S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana (2005), and Union of India v. Puna Hinda (2021) to reaffirm that writ courts should not interfere in cases arising from contractual disputes requiring factual examination.
The Bench observed that determining whether GST reimbursement was payable required evaluation of the contract terms, tender conditions, and departmental instructions issues unsuitable for summary adjudication through a writ petition.
Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the impugned order, ruling that the petitioner had an alternative legal remedy, such as approaching a civil court or arbitration forum, to resolve the claim.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
