M/S. Barthakur And Associates vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court noted that the respondent GMC authorities had been put on notice since September 25, 2019, but had not filed any response to traverse or admit the petitioner's claim. In view of the consensus arrived at by the learned counsel for both parties, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition without keeping it pending. The Court directed the respondent authorities in the GMC, particularly the Commissioner, to examine and verify the petitioner's claim concerning the three revised invoices for consultancy services. If, after examination and verification, the petitioner is found entitled to any amount beyond what has already been disbursed, the bills are to be processed for the disbursement of the balance within a reasonable period. The Standing Counsel for GMC suggested a period of four months, which the Court accepted.

Facts

M/s. Barthakur and Associates, a consultant architect firm, was empanelled by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) in 2013 for rendering consultancy services. The petitioner firm was entrusted with three projects for which it submitted invoices for consultancy services. Initially, payments were made based on invoices submitted before the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted revised invoices including GST for a total amount of Rs. 14,77,835/-. The petitioner claims to have received only a part of the bill amount and, after repeated attempts to secure the balance payment from 2017 onwards, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for processing and disbursal of the outstanding amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) authorities are liable to process and disburse the balance amount claimed by the petitioner firm for consultancy services rendered, considering the revised invoices submitted post-GST implementation? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that it had satisfactorily provided consultancy services for three projects and submitted revised invoices including GST. They contended that a significant portion of the billed amount remained unpaid despite repeated follow-ups since 2017, necessitating the writ petition for a direction to the GMC to process and disburse the balance amount. Revenue's Contention: The respondent GMC, through its Standing Counsel, stated that while instructions had been received, they were not sufficient to file a counter-affidavit. However, the Standing Counsel agreed to a proposal for the writ petition to be disposed of with a direction to the GMC authorities to examine and verify the petitioner's bills and disburse any entitled amount within a reasonable time.