Sree Vinayaga Contructions vs. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

Held

The Court held that the first respondent (The Government of Tamil Nadu) is directed to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court's reasoning is based on the fact that a previous Division Bench of the High Court had already determined the petitioners' liability to pay service tax for the period 2015-2017 and had granted them liberty to collect the tax from the Government. The present petitions were filed because the Government had not acted upon this liberty and had not disbursed the amounts despite the petitioners' representations. The ratio decidendi is that when a previous court order grants liberty to collect taxes from a government entity, and that entity fails to act upon such liberty despite representations, the High Court can direct the entity to consider and pass orders on the matter within a stipulated time. The operative direction is for the Government to consider the petitioners' case and pass orders within twelve weeks.

Facts

The petitioners, Sri Vinayaga Constructions and Om Sri Sairam Constructions, are Registered Class I Contractors who performed works contract services for the Public Works Department of Tamil Nadu between 2015 and 2017. A previous decision by a Division Bench of the High Court had held the petitioners liable to pay service tax for these services, but granted them liberty to collect the tax from the Government. The petitioners have since made multiple representations to the Government seeking disbursement of the service tax, interest, and penalty amounts, which they are liable to pay. However, the Government has not considered their claims, leading to the filing of these writ petitions seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to disburse the amounts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents, particularly the Government of Tamil Nadu, are obligated to disburse the service tax, interest, and penalty amounts to the petitioners for services rendered between 2015 and 2017, as per a previous High Court order granting liberty to collect such taxes from the Government? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argue that based on a prior High Court ruling, they are entitled to collect the service tax, interest, and penalty from the Government for the services rendered. They contend that despite their repeated representations, the Government has failed to consider their claims and disburse the amounts, necessitating judicial intervention. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents against the petitioners' claim for disbursement. The focus appears to be on the petitioners' plea for a direction to the Government to consider their representations.