Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner is a government contractor engaged in earthwork in embankment, construction of minor bridges and ancillary works vide letter dated 01.09.2017, i.e., prior to implementation of GST. Upon introduction of GST with effect from July 2017, the petitioner deposited consolidated GST on the executed works with the GST authorities at Jabalpur. Claiming entitlement to reimbursement towards GST paid, the petitioner submitted a request for reimbursement on 09.04.2019, i.e., prior to completion of the project. The work was completed on 29.06.2019 and a completion certificate was issued on 26.08.2019.  The petitioner’s claim for GST neutralisation/reimbursement was rejected on the ground that such claim could not be entertained after passing of the final bill and submission of a no-claim certificate. 

Issue:

Whether the petitioner’s claim for GST neutralisation/reimbursement could be denied solely on the ground that the final bill had been passed and a no-claim certificate submitted, despite the fact that the GST claim had been raised prior to completion of the contract and the payment of GST stood duly verified by the GST authorities.

Held that:

The Court noted that the petitioner had raised its claim for GST neutralisation prior to completion of the work, and the payment of GST had been duly verified by the GST Department at the instance of respondent No.3. There was no dispute regarding the actual deposit of GST by the petitioner. The Court observed that rejection of the claim solely on the technical ground of passing of the final bill and submission of a no-claim certificate was arbitrary and unjustified, particularly when the substantive entitlement of the petitioner stood established. The respondents failed to point out any legal basis to deny reimbursement once it was admitted that GST was payable by the Railways and had, in fact, been paid by the petitioner.

With regard to the respondents’ contention that a supplementary agreement was not executed, the Court held that the petitioner had duly submitted the supplementary agreement with its signatures, and the same was not executed by the Railways. Hence, the petitioner could not be faulted for non-execution of the supplementary agreement. The Court further took note of the fact that in identical circumstances, the petitioner’s GST neutralisation claims had been accepted by other railway zones after issuance of completion certificates, thereby reinforcing the arbitrariness of the impugned action. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to accept the GST neutralisation claim and reimburse the amount as per the petitioner’s entitlement.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the GST amount paid by it.

Case Name: M/s TRISHUL CONSTRUCTION A PARTNERSHIP FRIM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. dated 21.01.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 228