Ms Shanti Associates Jv Through Its Partner Shailendra Kishore Sharma vs. The General Manager Civil Bharat Cooking Coal Limited And Ors

Held

The Court noted the submissions of both parties. The petitioner had completed the work within the stipulated period and had obtained a completion certificate. The primary dispute revolved around the release of payment and the requirement of GST registration for work awarded prior to the GST regime. The respondent BCCL indicated that the claim needed verification and suggested a fresh representation. In light of this, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation detailing their claim. Upon receipt, the competent authority of BCCL was directed to decide the claim after calling for relevant records and providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The decision was to be taken within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The Court did not explicitly rule on the GST registration issue but implicitly allowed the process to move forward by directing the filing of a representation.

Facts

M/s Shanti Associates (JV), the petitioner, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the release of payment for completed works and security deposit deducted from running bills. The petitioner was awarded a contract by Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) for repair of residential quarters. The work commenced on May 23, 2013, and was completed on May 22, 2016, within the stipulated period. A completion certificate was issued on February 21, 2017. Despite completion, BCCL withheld payments. The petitioner argued that since the work was awarded prior to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act coming into force, GST registration was not required for the period of work. BCCL contended that the claim required factual verification and suggested the petitioner file a fresh representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of payment for the completed work and security deposit, given that the work was completed within the contractual period and the maintenance period has also expired. 2. Whether the petitioner is required to provide GST registration for the period prior to the enforcement of the GST Act for the release of payments. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they had successfully completed the work within the specified time as per the contract and had received a completion certificate. They contended that the work was awarded before the GST Act came into force, thus GST registration was not a prerequisite for payment. They referred to a 'noting-sheet for revenue' which indicated a recommendation for payment of Rs. 57,43,879.03. Respondents' Arguments: The respondent BCCL argued that the petitioner's claim required factual verification by competent authorities. They suggested that if the petitioner filed a fresh representation detailing their claim, the competent authority would consider it and take a suitable decision.