Satin Goel vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Satin Goel, approached the High Court seeking a mandamus for reimbursement of GST amounting to ₹1,49,118/-, which he had deposited with the department for work done as per terms dated 01.01.2024. Despite numerous representations, no action was taken. The Court, by order dated 03.04.2025, directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representations dated 29.07.2024 and 06.09.2024 within six weeks. A subsequent speaking order dated 15.05.2025, placed on record, explained that the increase in GST rates from 12% to 18% led to a bill revision from ₹8,30,653/- to ₹9,39,975/-. The revised estimate required fund demand from the Head Office, and payment to the petitioner was assured within three months.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner's representations had been decided, and payment was assured within three months. The speaking order clarified that the delay was due to an increase in GST rates from 12% to 18%, necessitating a revision of the bill amount and a demand for funds from the Head Office. As the payment was now assured and the representations addressed, the Court found no further direction was required. Therefore, the writ petition was closed and disposed of. The Court did not make any specific findings on the merits of whether the bills were admitted or sanctioned, focusing instead on the procedural resolution and assurance of payment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should issue a mandamus directing the respondents to pay/reimburse the GST amount of ₹1,49,118/- to the petitioner, considering the petitioner's prior representations and the deposit of GST. (Question of law and fact, potentially concerning principles of natural justice and contractual obligations). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that he had deposited the GST amount and made several representations without receiving a response, necessitating judicial intervention to compel payment. Respondents' Argument: The State counsel accepted notice and stated there was no objection to a mandamus being passed upon respondent No.3 to decide the petitioner's legal notice in a time-bound manner. Subsequently, a speaking order explained the delay due to GST rate revision and assured payment within three months.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 CWP-8408-2025 Date of Decision : May 20, 2025 SATIN GOEL -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana. *** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
In deference to the hereinafter extracted order passed by this Court on 03.04.2025, today the learned State counsel has placed on record a speaking order dated 15.05.2025, which is taken on record as ‘Mark A’. “The petitioner approached this court for seeking mandamus upon respondents to pay/reimburse the GST amount of ₹ 1,49,118/- to the petitioner, which he has already deposited with the department concerned for the work done by him as per the terms and conditions dated 01.01.2024 (Annexure P-4). He further submits that numerous representations were made to the respondents, however, no action has been taken. Notice of motion. Mr. Bhupender Singh, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents and waives service. He submits that there is no objection in case a mandamus is passed upon respondent No.3, to decide the legal no
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.