M/S Abc Consturctions, Bbsr vs. The Executive Engineer., Central Public Works Dept., Bbsr

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. ABC Constructions, filed a Writ Petition before the Orissa High Court seeking a direction to the Opposite Party, the Executive Engineer (E), Central Public Works Department, Bhubaneswar, to refund amounts paid towards service tax and GST as per claims made under Annexures-2 and 3. Alternatively, the petitioner prayed for the Opposite Party to dispose of representations made vide Annexures-4 to 6 within a stipulated time. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel stated that a representation (Annexure-6) had been made highlighting the grievances, and requested a direction for its consideration within a specific timeframe. The State Counsel had no objection to this request. The Court, without commenting on the merits, disposed of the petition.

Held

The Court decided not to express any opinion on the merits of the case. On the first issue regarding the refund of service tax and GST, no specific finding was given as the Court focused on the procedural aspect. Regarding the second issue, the Court accepted the consensus between the parties. It directed the Opposite Party to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-6 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. The Court stipulated a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order for the Opposite Party to comply with this direction. The ratio decidendi is that when parties agree to a procedural resolution, the High Court can direct the relevant authority to consider pending representations within a specified timeframe, without adjudicating the underlying substantive claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of amounts paid towards service tax and GST as claimed under Annexures-2 and 3? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the Opposite Party should be directed to dispose of the representations made by the Petitioner vide Annexures-4 to 6 within a fixed time? (Question of law and procedure) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to a refund of service tax and GST paid, as per their claims. Alternatively, they sought a direction for the Opposite Party to consider and dispose of their pending representations concerning these claims within a reasonable period. The petitioner relied on Annexures-2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to support their claims and representations. Revenue/State's Contention: The State Counsel had no objection to the Petitioner's prayer for a direction to consider the representation (Annexure-6) within a stipulated time. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the merits of the refund claim itself.