Reimbursement for verified tax payments cannot be denied on technical grounds, such as the passing of a final bill, submission of a 'no claim certificate', or the department's failure to sign a supplementary agreement, especially when the claim was initiated prior to work completion.

ORDER :

Deepak Khot, J.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the communication dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure P/9) issued by respondent No.3; whereby claim of the petitioner for GST neutralization has been denied by the respondents on the ground that the claim cannot be entertained after passing of the final bill and submission of no claim certificate by the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner firm is engaged in the business of Government Contractorship and was awarded earthwork in embankment and construction of minor bridges and other ancillary works in connection with Panna-Satna of Lalitpur-Singrauli New BG rail line project vide letter dated 01.09.2017 (Annexure P/1). Since the GST was made applicable with effect from July, 2017, the petitioner deposited consolidated GST of the works executed in the office at Jabalpur. Thus, as per the petitioner, the petitioner/firm is entitled for reimbursement of the GST amount of Rs.2,34,69,436.62/- from the respondents. The petitioner vide letter dated 09.04.2019 (Annexure P/2) requested the respondents for payment of the amount of GST paid by the petitioner. As the contract work was completed on 29.06.2019, a completion certificate was issued by the respondent No.3 on 26.08.2019 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner vide letter dated 12.08.2020 (Annexure P/4) again requested the respondent No.3 for payment of the GST amount, however, the same was not paid. Thereafter, respondent No.3 vide communication dated 24.08.2020 (Annexure P/5) wrote to the Assistant Commissioner, GST Government of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur thereby enquiring as to whether the petitioner has deposited the required amount of GST with the GST Department. The office of Assistant Commissioner, GST, Jabalpur vide communication dated 22.12.2020 (Annexure P/6) gave the entire details of the GST paid by the petitioner. The respondent No.3 vide letter dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure P/7) wrote to the Accounts Department of the West Central Railway seeking instructions stating that the tender was awarded to the petitioner prior to implementation of GST and the GST has been paid by the petitioner and reimbursement whereof has been sought by the petitioner. It was also stated that the petitioner has submitted no claim certificate and final bill has also been passed. In pursuance of the letter, the Accounts Department vide communication dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure P/8) instructed that the claim of GST neutralization amount cannot be admitted after passing of the final bill and submission of no claim certificate by the Contractor. Eventually, respondent No.3 vide communication dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure P/9) has informed the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner for GST neutralization amount cannot be admitted after passing of the final bill and submission of no claim certificate, against which the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted the claim for GST reimbursement prior to the completion of the project vide letter dated 09.04.2019. The petitioner vide letter dated 12.08.2020 (Annexure P/4) has again requested the respondent No.3 for payment of the GST neutralization amount. It is submitted that merely on the basis that the petitioner has completed the documentation formality after payment of the final bill would not disentitle the petitioner from its claim of GST neutralization amount. It is undisputed that the GST amount has been paid by the petitioner, which is duly certified by the Assistant Commissioner, GST, Jabalpur. It is also submitted that the petitioner has satisfactorily completed the work and after completion of the same has submitted the final bill and the same has also been paid to the petitioner, however, the claim for GST reimbursement has been denied by the respondent No.3 only on the ground that the GST neutralization amount canno