No Error on Record Justifying Review: Chhattisgarh HC upholds Dismissal of Contractor’s Plea for ₹9.18 Crore GST Reimbursement [Read Order]

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a review petition filed seeking reconsideration of its earlier order rejecting the contractor’s plea for reimbursement of ₹9.18 crore towards Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) liability.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that there was no “error apparent on the face of record” to justify interference under review jurisdiction.

The petitioner, M/s Kunal BSBK Joint Venture Pvt Ltd, a joint venture engaged in construction works for the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 6197 of 2024, seeking reimbursement of ₹9.18 crore towards GST, along with 18% interest.

The amount represented the alleged increase in tax burden following the introduction of GST from July 1, 2017. The contractor contended that similar reimbursements had been granted by other state departments such as the Public Works Department to similarly placed contractors.

The writ petition was, however, dismissed by the Court on 11 August 2025, holding that the dispute was contractual in nature and that the petitioner had an alternate remedy through arbitration or a civil suit.

The contractor then filed a review petition claiming that the earlier order contained errors apparent on the record and failed to appreciate the constitutional and legal issues involved.

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Abhishek Rastogi, argued that the Court had erred in treating the matter as a purely private contractual dispute, despite the respondent being a statutory body constituted under the Chhattisgarh Housing Board Act, 1972. It was contended that the claim for GST reimbursement arose from a statutory tax change and involved public law elements, making writ jurisdiction maintainable.

The petitioner further asserted that the Court had failed to consider that other State instrumentalities had reimbursed the additional GST burden to similarly placed contractors, and therefore, the denial of such reimbursement to the petitioner amounted to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

It was also contended that the respondent’s own communications reflected a clear intention to reimburse the GST component, thereby attracting the principle of promissory estoppel. The petitioner emphasized that the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract could not bar the maintainability of a writ petition, as had already been recognized by the same High Court in its earlier decisions in W.P.(C) No. 3339 of 2023 and W.A. No. 350 of 2024.

Furthermore, it was argued that the impugned judgment stood in direct conflict with binding Supreme Court precedents such as Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) and ABL International Ltd. v. ECGC of India Ltd. (2004), both of which upheld the maintainability of writ petitions in contractual matters involving public law elements and constitutional principles.

The Division Bench said that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A review cannot be entertained merely because a party is dissatisfied with the decision or seeks to reargue the matter on merits.

The Court stated that review is permissible only where there exists a manifest error apparent on the record or where material facts were overlooked.

The Bench held that the petitioner’s submissions essentially sought reappreciation of facts and reargument on merits, which is impermissible in review proceedings. It relied on several Supreme Court rulings, including Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai (1987), Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995), and Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000), which clarified that review jurisdiction cannot be used as a disguised appeal.

The Court further noted that the earlier order had correctly observed that the dispute between the contractor and the Housing Board was contractual in nature and that remedies such as civil proceedings or arbitration were available. The petitioner’s failure to exhaust those remedies was an additional reason to decline interference.

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no error apparent on record or any other sufficient ground warranting review reiterating that contractual disputes involving monetary claims do not ordinarily warrant judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution when alternate remedies exist.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates