Ms The Tibba Dana Sher Co Operative Labour And Construction Society LTD vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s The Tibba Dana Sher Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to release an outstanding amount of ₹2,26,00,000, inclusive of 18% GST. This amount is payable for work executed under agreement no. 131 dated 15.06.2024, which involved the conservation of excess canal water and improvement of the ground water table on Panchayat land in village Singhani, Block Loharu, District Bhiwani. The State counsel stated that the petitioner had made an excess payment of approximately ₹2,50,00,000. Consequently, the respondents decided to withhold the outstanding payment through a letter dated 23.06.2026, a copy of which was annexed as Annexure 'A'.

Held

The Court held that the facts were in dispute and that such disputes could not be adjudicated upon in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy for the redressal of their grievance concerning the letter dated 23.06.2026. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim for the outstanding amount or the revenue's assertion of excess payment. The specific provisions of the GST Act or Rules that would govern the resolution of such a dispute were not discussed or applied by the Court in its decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, can adjudicate on disputed facts concerning excess payment and withholding of dues, particularly when the dispute involves financial calculations and contractual obligations under the GST regime? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the release of the outstanding payment, implying a right to receive the amount and a corresponding duty on the respondents to release it. The petitioner likely argued that the withholding of payment was unjustified and that the GST component was legitimately due. Revenue's contention: The State counsel submitted that the petitioner had made an excess payment of approximately ₹2,50,00,000 and that the respondents had decided to withhold the outstanding payment based on this fact. This suggests the revenue's argument was that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed amount due to prior overpayment, and the withholding was a valid adjustment or recovery mechanism.