M/S.Sindhu Murugan And Co vs. The Project Director
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sindhu Murugan & Co., filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the first respondent, the Project Director of Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, to consider payment of Rs. 4,24,43,029/- towards GST. This claim was based on a representation submitted by the petitioner on December 9, 2021, and was to be considered in light of G.O.Ms.No.296 dated October 9, 2017, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The writ petition also impleaded the Additional Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Tirunelveli, and the Directorate General of GST Intelligence as respondents. The petitioner sought a direction for payment within a timeframe to be fixed by the Court.
Held
The Court noted that the issue raised in the present writ petition was squarely covered by a previous order of the same Court in W.P.(MD) No.25882 of 2022, dated November 16, 2022. The facts involved in both writ petitions were found to be similar. Consequently, the Court decided to issue a similar direction as was given in the earlier case. The first respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated December 9, 2021, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court also clarified that it was open for the petitioner to approach the GST authorities for further time, considering the pendency of the writ petition, and that the adjudicating authority should consider such a request by taking into account the pendency of the representation before the first respondent. No specific finding was made on the merits of the GST claim itself, only on the procedural direction for consideration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the first respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's claim for payment of Rs. 4,24,43,029/- towards GST, as per the representation dated December 9, 2021, in light of G.O.Ms.No.296 dated October 9, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the first respondent should be directed to consider their claim for GST payment based on the specified Government Order and their representation. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents. However, the Court's order implies that the matter is procedural and requires consideration by the first respondent.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.01.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and W.M.P.(MD) No.687 of 2025 M/s.Sindhu Murugan & Co., Rep., by its Authorized Signatory, Shri Seenivasan, No.12, Ram Vilas Nagar, N.G.O. B Colony, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627 007. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Project Director, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, TNMB Buildings, South Kesavaperumalpuram, Chennai-600 028. 2.The Additional Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Tirunelveli Sub-Commissionerate, No.7, Tractor Road, NGO A Colony, Tirunelveli-627 007. 3.M/s.LEA Associates South Asia Private Limited, Rep., by its Team Leader, (Authority Engineer for 1st respondent), 19/2, Ram Nagar, Near Rose Mary Matric Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli-627 011. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Coimbatore Zonal Unit, 155, 1, Lakshmanan Street, Ukkadam, Coimbatore-641 001. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
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 Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.