TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind P. Datar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate For Respondent-UOI Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondent-State Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Addl. AG CAV Order 1. Since the present batch of writ petitions involve similar question of fact and law as well, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The present batch of writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners seeking a declaration that notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended by notification No. 03/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022 prescribing the rate of GST at 18% for works contract services, be declared inapplicable for the contracts which have been executed pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T rate of 18% in respect of concluded contract. It is highly illegal on the part of the respondents to accept execution of work under the contract, which was extended prior to 18.07.2022 on the revised rate of 18%. He further submits that the petitioners and other contractors at the time of submission of their bids submitted their offer/bid on the basis of GST liability @ 12% existing at the time of bid and calculated their bid price on the basis of applicable GST rate of 12%, but in present cases, the increase rate of GST is being made applicable retrospectively despite contracts executed before 18.07.2022 without any refund or reimbursement mechanism, which is impermissible in the eyes of law. Learned Senior counsel further submits that s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r deceased rate of tax, then the prayer sought for by the petitioner is itself frivolous and without any basis and therefore the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. The reliefs claimed by the petitioners have no locus to stand on its own and have no legal baking to support it. The stand taken by the petitioners that the State Government vide circular dated 02.08.2018 has decided to reimbursement the amount tax is not at all justified, as the State Government has only decided to reimburse those differential amounts, which have been incurred by the contractor on count of new tax for those contracts which have been executed prior to coming of GST. This circular is not going to help the petitioners for the reason that the petitioners' terms....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondents in rejecting the claim application also is one, which would be hit by Article 14 of the constitution of India for the reason that in the event of a Contractor having contract with the various Department of the Government, he gets the reimbursement of the additional tax liability from all other Departments except for one, thus it would be arbitrary and discriminatory. If the Government has taken a decision to protect the interest of the Contractor in the light of introduction of new tax law, it ought to have been uniformly made applicable to all the Departments to the State Government and it could not have been made applicable Departments wise without any sufficient cogent reasons. It would have been more reasonable and fair o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e suitably reimbursed after due scrutiny and enquiry necessary in-respect-of the additional tax burden incurred by the petitioner." 9. The documents submitted by the petitioners in the present writ petitions postulate that some of the departments of the State Government of Chhattisgarh have accepted such claim of the contractors where certain additional burden of money was incurred upon them after coming into force of the GST. In the similar nature of case, this Court vide order dated 17.11.2022 passed in WPT No. 94/2020 directed the petitioner therein to make a fresh claim showing the difference of tax liability that was incurred at the time of submission of bids and the excess tax paid by him in the light of the introduction of the GST ....