V.Gopalakrishnan vs. The Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its Principal Secretary

Facts

The petitioner, representing an association of service providers, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 (Public Works Department officials) to disburse service tax, interest, and penalty amounts for services rendered by the association members between 2015 and 2017. This followed a previous order by the High Court in W.P.(MD) Nos. 16832 to 16894 and 16896 to 16940 of 2023, dated 17.07.2023, which directed respondents to consider individual claims. The petitioner contended that these directions were not complied with. The State respondents (1 to 5) sought time, stating that several applications were pending. The 6th respondent (Central GST) stated it was an internal matter between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 5.

Held

The Court held that the respondents 1 to 5 had not complied with the earlier order dated 17.07.2023. The Court noted that this non-compliance prima facie amounts to contempt. However, instead of initiating suo motu contempt proceedings immediately, the Court granted a final opportunity to respondents 1 to 5 to comply with the earlier order. They were directed to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner was granted liberty to mention the matter for initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings if the respondents failed to comply within the stipulated period. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents 1 to 5 have complied with the order of this Court dated 17.07.2023 in W.P.(MD) Nos. 16832 to 16894 and 16896 to 16940 of 2023, directing them to consider the claims of the petitioner's association members for services rendered between 2015 and 2017? (Question of fact and law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the previous order of this Court has not been complied with, despite considerable time elapsed. They submitted a fresh representation on behalf of the association members and sought a direction for its consideration and appropriate orders within a specified timeframe. Respondents' arguments: Respondents 1 to 5 (State) submitted that several applications are pending consideration and sought time to pass appropriate orders. Respondent 6 (Central GST) stated that the dispute is an internal matter between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 5.