1 2025:CGHC:30024 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 898 of 2025 1 - M/s K. Chandrasekhar Rao Having Its Office At H. No. 203, Gulmohar, D.M. Vatika, Kachna Road, Kamardih, District Raipur (C.G.), Through Its Proprietor Shri K. Chandrasekhar Rao S/o Late Shri K. Sreeramulu, Aged About 63 Years, R/o H. No. 203, Gulmohar, D.M. Vatika, Kancha Road, Kamardih, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dr. Kamal Preet Singh Secretary, Public Works Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shri K.K. Pipri The Then Engineer-In-Chief, Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Capitol Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Shri Vijay Kumar Bhatpahri Presently As Engineer-In-Chief, Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Capitol Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Shri S.K. Kori Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bridge Zone, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Shri S.S. Manjhi Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Bridge Zone, Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Shri C.K. Pandey Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Bridge Construction Division, Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Wardhan Agrawal, Advocate VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.07 12:45:31 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 01/07/2025 1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner for willful violation of the order dated 17.04.2023, passed in WPC No. 5569 of 2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had preferred a writ petition seeking declaration that the notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, as amended by notification No. 3/2022-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 prior to 18.07.2022 and also for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for refund of 6% of additional GST paid by him for the contract executed prior to 18.07.2022. The said writ petition was disposed of by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 17.04.2023 directing the respondent authorities in para 9 that; “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 3 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 and upon such claim being made, the respondents were directed to forthwith process the same and after due scrutiny and enquiry, the petitioner therein be suitably reimbursed the additional tax burden incurred by him. Thus, keeping in view the fact that present cases are not distinguishable to that of passed in WPT No.94/2020, it would be just and expedient in the interest of justice to direct the petitioners herein as well to follow the process, as has been directed/observed in the aforesaid writ petition. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners shall make a fresh claim before the respondent authorities agitating their grievance and upon such claim being made, the respondent authorities shall proceed ahead with the necessary scrutiny and enquiry and thereafter if the petitioners are found entitled to be reimbursed the additional tax liability incurred upon them, they will suitably be reimbursed. Let the whole exercise be done within a period of 4 months from the date the petitioners make a fresh claim before the respondent authorities apropos additional tax liability.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the authorities concerned had passed the order on 12.09.2024 rejecting the representation of the petitioner and the respondents are trying to reopen the entire dispute, which is not permissible. The respondents/contemnors are willfully violating the direction given in the 4 writ petition and acting arbitrarily, which is willful violation and arbitrary exercise of powers, which amounts to contempt of court and the respondents may be prosecuted and punished for the same. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the contempt petition. 5. From perusal of the order under contempt, it reveals that the petitioner was directed to make a fresh claim before the respondent authorities agitating his grievances and the respondent authorities was directed to proceed ahead with necessary scrutiny and inquiry and thereafter, if the petitioner is found entitled to be reimbursed of additional tax liability incurred upon him, he will suitably be reimbursed. From perusal of the document (Annexure C/6) dated 12.09.2024, it transpires that representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the authorities concerned after scrutinizing his case. Since the respondent authorities have already taken a decision on 12.09.2024, rejecting the claim of the petitioner with respect to tax liability, I do not find any good ground to issue notice to the respondents and to continue the contempt petition any further. 6. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved