The court ruled that claims for reimbursement of GST, arising from contractual obligations, do not involve public law and should be addressed through alternative remedies such as arbitration.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, quashing and setting aside decisions dated 21.12.2017 and 02.05.2024 of the Respondent in its entirety with consequential relief to the Petitioner;

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, directing the Respondent to release the payments to the extent of reimbursement of GST amounting to Rs. 9,18,32,861/-on services provided by Petitioner under impugned Contract along with interest @ 18% p.a. as per section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017for the delay in releasing the payment to be computed from the date of submission of invoice till the date of reimbursement of GST by the Respondent.

10.3 Respondent for costs of the petition and orders thereon; and

10.4 for such further and other reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner- Company is a joint venture between BSBK Pvt Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "BSBK") and Kunal Structure India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Kunal") which has been floated as an SPV specifically with the sole purpose to participate and execute the project. The consortium comprising Kunal and BSBK had bid for the project Construction of LIG and EWS houses with related Infrastructure Development for Chhattisgarh Housing Board at Naya Raipur and was declared successful bidder in the month of December, 2015. As per the conditions of the tender, a Joint Venture Company (JVC) was to be formed in the State of Chhattisgarh before signing of contract. Accordingly, jvc was incorporated under the name and style "Kunal BSBK Joint Venture Private Limited" in January 2016. Thereafter, the agreement was signed on 05.02.20216 between CGHB and the petitioner. There are only two shareholders of JVC viz; Kunal (51%) and BSBK (49%). As per the conditions specified by the CGHB in the tender, this Company cannot do any other business except the execution of the above Project which is specifically mentioned in the Memorandum of Association (MOA). As per the understanding between Kunal and BSBK, the entire work is being executed by BSBK on back to back basis. Since the JV company was a new company, it could not have taken the credit limits in its own name from the Banks and therefore, BSBK had taken the credit limits including the CC limit of Rs. 8 Crores in its own name from State Bank of India.

3. According to the petitioner, the present petition is third round of litigation before this Hon'ble Court on non-reimbursement of GST by the CGHB. In the first round, directions were given to the respondent to consider and decide the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law wherein the respondent failed to act within the purview of GST legal framework and which led to challenging the inaction of respondent through WPC 2552/2024. It was specific pleading of the petitioner before this Court that decision dated 2.5.2024 taken by the respondent on the issue cannot be considered as