1 2025:CGHC:5954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 676 of 2025 1 - M/s B.K. Chawla Contractor A Partnership Firm 28, Vardhman Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, Represented By Mr. Rohit Chawla S/o B.K. Chawla Aged About 51 Years, R/o Vardham Colony Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bridge Zone, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Bridge Zone, Raipur District-Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer P.W.D. Bridge Construction Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.02.03 23:28:16 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 03.02.2025 1. The whole grievance of the petitioner is the inaction on the part of the respondents in not refunding the amount of GST collected from the petitioner in the course of execution of the contract that was awarded to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, the contract was awarded prior to GST regime & GST by the Government from 01.07.2017 during the execution of the works contract. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of repeated approach being made to the respondents vide Annexure P/6, there is a total inaction on the part of the respondents so far as the refund of GST is concerned. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that subject to verification of facts, the claim of the petitioner shall be decided at the earliest. 4. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition as of now stands disposed of directing the respondent Authorities to immediately process the claim of the petitioner so far as the refund of GST is concerned, after the due verification of facts and also the entitlement part of the petitioner is concerned. Let an appropriate decision be taken keeping in view the contention of the petitioner that in many of the similar cases of other departments like PWD, 3 PMGSY, NHAI, RAILWAYS, and CPWD the government itself has refunded the GST. 5. Let an appropriate decision be taken within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib