1 2025:CGHC:49516-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 320 of 2025 M/s Kunal BSBK Joint Venture Pvt Ltd., Through Shri V.R. Chetty, S/o Late K.V. Chetty Age About 65 Years Vice President (Project), 4th Floor Surya Treasure Island Mall Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Commissioner Pravas Bhavan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Rastogi, Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari and Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocates For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.10 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Rastogi, Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari and Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the review Petitioner. 2. The present review petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking review/recall of the order dated 11.08.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 6197 of 2024 and restore the petition to its original number and decide the ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.10.06 17:57:31 +0530 2 matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or pass other necessary orders in the peculiar factual matrix of the case in order to do complete justice with the parties, in favour of petitioner. 3. Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that the review petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (C) No. 6197 of 2024 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 21.12.2017 and 02.05.2024 passed by the Respondent, and further directing the Respondent to release payment of GST amounting to ₹9,18,32,861/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. However, this Court, vide its judgment dated 11.08.2025, dismissed the said writ petition holding it to be devoid of merit and not maintainable. The following grounds have been raised by the review petitioner: • The present review petition is being filed primarily on the ground that there exists an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order dated 11.08.2025, which warrants recall and review of the same. • This Court erred in overlooking the settled proposition of law that rejection of the petitioner’s claim is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Where contractors having similar contracts with various State Government bodies have been reimbursed the additional tax liability arising due to the implementation of GST, denial of the same to the petitioner amounts to discrimination and arbitrariness. • The Government of Chhattisgarh had issued directions through 3 various departments and instrumentalities acknowledging the additional tax burden on contractors post-introduction of GST with effect from 1st July 2017 and had granted reimbursement of such additional liability to similarly placed contractors. • The rejection of the petitioner’s claim, therefore, stands on a discriminatory footing, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as other Departments such as the Public Works Department and allied bodies have reimbursed identical claims. • The respondent misled this Court by incorrectly contending that the Petitioner’s request for refund of GST was never accepted and had been rejected by order dated 21.12.2017, which was not placed on record. This contention is factually erroneous, as the said order and the petitioner’s disagreement thereto were duly filed with the rejoinder. • Moreover, subsequent communications from the respondent clearly establish that despite the earlier order dated 21.12.2017, the respondent sought detailed calculations of GST payable with a view to reimbursing the same. On the principle of promissory estoppel, the petitioner is therefore entitled to reimbursement. • This Court erred in concluding that there exists a dispute regarding interpretation of contractual clauses warranting arbitration. The documents on record, including Exhibit P/24 (pages 344–378), show that the respondent itself agreed upon the computation of tax payable and signed the detailed calculation sheet determining the net GST impact. • The respondent has incorrectly projected GST as a new tax, 4 whereas the liability determined pertains only to the erstwhile Service Tax component expressly agreed to be reimbursable under the contract. The joint calculation demonstrates that the amount claimed is merely reimbursement of the Service Tax component after accounting for set-offs and input tax credit. • The impugned judgment further proceeds on an erroneous assumption that the Chhattisgarh State Housing Board (CGHB) is a private body and that the dispute arises purely out of a private contract. This finding is contrary to law, as CGHB is a statutory public body constituted under the Chhattisgarh Housing Board Act, 1972, functioning under the control and supervision of the State Government. • The conclusion treating the matter as a private dispute overlooks the statutory character of the Respondent and the public law element involved, as also recognized in para 21 of the impugned judgment itself, amounting to an error apparent on the face of the record. • Further, this Court, while holding the writ petition to be not maintainable, inadvertently overlooked its own binding precedent in W.P.(C) No. 3339 of 2023 and W.A. No. 350 of 2024, which involved identical facts and an identical contract containing Clause 1.21 of the arbitration clause. In those cases, this Court categorically held that the existence of an arbitration clause does not bar writ jurisdiction in matters involving reimbursement of statutory taxes. • Relevant extract of para 10 of the impugned judgment dated 5 11.08.2025 records that the issue of non-reimbursement of GST is no longer res integra in view of the decision in BSBK Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., yet the Court failed to apply the ratio of the same, resulting in an apparent contradiction within the judgment itself. • The findings of this Court in para 10 also run contrary to its own prior rulings in W.P.(C) No. 3339 of 2023, affirmed in W.A. No. 350 of 2024, wherein it was specifically held that Clause 1.21 of the agreement does not oust writ jurisdiction in cases concerning statutory reimbursement of GST and price escalation. • The impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record by ignoring binding judicial precedents and mischaracterizing the Respondent’s status. • The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1, ABL International Ltd. v. ECGC of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553, Union of India vs. Tantia Construction (P) Ltd. (2011) 5 SCC 697, and Unitech Ltd. vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (2021) 6 SCC 35, has consistently held that writ jurisdiction is maintainable in contractual matters where public law elements or constitutional rights are involved, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar in such circumstances. • The Hon’ble Supreme Court in BCCI vs. Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 SCC 741 and Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 320 has also clarified that a review would be 6 maintainable where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason resulting in miscarriage of justice. • The inadvertent error of overlooking binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court’s own judgments has led to grave miscarriage of justice, warranting interference in review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Rule 90(1) of the High Court Rules. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and perused the impugned order under review. 5. It is well-settled that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC is limited and can be invoked only when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, or when a material fact, which would have had a bearing on the decision, has been overlooked by the Court. A review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be entertained merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the outcome of the original judgment or seeks to re-argue the matter on merits. 6. The main contention of the review petitioner is that in a similar set of facts, the writ petition filed by the review petitioner was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the appeal filed by the respondent/Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, the appeal was dismissed affirming the order of the learned Single Judge, as such, the writ petition filed by the present review petitioner ought to have been allowed. It is not in dispute that the review petitioner had not exhausted any of the remedies available before approaching this Court. Though, availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, however, it 7 does not automatically entitle a petition to be heard on merits. The review petitioner has further not been able to establish as to what prejudice would have been caused if it would have taken recourse to alternative remedy available. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Review Petitioner and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting interference within the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The grounds urged essentially seek re- appreciation of facts and re-argument on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. 8. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law (Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai1, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others3, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others4, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others5 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.) 9. This Court, while dismissing the writ petition, had observed that the 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 2 (1995) 1 SCC 170 3 (1996) 10 SCC 174 4 AIR 2000 SC 1650 5 (2013) 2 SCC 1 6 (2017) 4 SCC 692 8 dispute between the review petitioner and the respondent-Housing Board was contractual in nature and as such, the review petitioner could have taken recourse to competent jurisdictional civil court for realisation of any amount which arises out of the contractual obligations. The review petitioner could have taken recourse to arbitration proceedings as well which was provided in their contract. Basically, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy and as such, no case for interference is made out. 10. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu / Amit