Rajib Mitra vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajib Mitra, sought interest on account of delayed payment from BSNL. BSNL, through its learned advocate, submitted that a hearing was conducted and the petitioner was orally informed that interest could not be paid. The principal amount due and payable to the petitioner has been paid. The CGST authority and Union of India were also parties to the proceeding. The matter came before the High Court at Calcutta.

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issue of whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payment. Instead, the Court directed BSNL to formally communicate its decision to the petitioner regarding the prayer for grant of interest. This communication was to be made at the earliest, and positively within a fortnight from the date of the order. The Court noted that the principal amount due has been paid. The reasoning appears to be procedural, ensuring a formal decision is communicated to the petitioner, rather than adjudicating the entitlement to interest itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on account of delayed payment, and if so, what is the quantum and basis for such interest? This issue turns on the interpretation of relevant contractual terms and potentially GST provisions related to delayed payments. The petitioner argued that interest is due on account of delayed payment. BSNL contended that following a hearing, the petitioner was orally intimated that interest cannot be paid.