M/S H.P. Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s H.P. Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent no. 3, the Executive Engineer, Prantiya Khand, Public Works Department, Prayagraj, to refund Rs. 3,82,800/- deposited towards Goods and Services Tax (GST). This deposit was made in relation to construction work awarded to the petitioner under a Government Order dated 8.11.2017. The petitioner had previously submitted a representation dated 7.2.2020 to respondent no. 3 regarding this claim, which remained pending. The petition also sought a direction for the prompt decision of this pending representation.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a mandamus directing respondent no. 3, the Executive Engineer, Prantiya Khand, Public Works Department, Prayagraj, to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 7.2.2020. The decision is to be made in accordance with the law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. The Court did not make any specific finding on the entitlement to the refund of Rs. 3,82,800/- or the interpretation of the Government Order dated 8.11.2017, as the matter was remitted for consideration of the pending representation. The ratio decidendi is that pending representations concerning tax refunds should be decided expeditiously by the concerned authorities in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 3,82,800/- deposited towards GST, as per the Government Order dated 8.11.2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the refund of the deposited GST amount in accordance with the provisions of the Government Order dated 8.11.2017. They relied on the Government Order to support their claim for the refund. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondent State or its authorities regarding the petitioner's claim for refund or the validity of the Government Order. The Standing Counsel appeared for the State respondents.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 469 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S H.P. Enterprises Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Instant writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs : "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to ensure the refund Rs.3,82,800/- deposited by the petitioner towards Goods and Services Tax in pursuance to the payment against the work of construction allotted to him by the department under the provisions of Government Order dated 8.11.2017 to the petitioner forthwith or within a stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the pending representations of the petitioner forthwith or within a stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (iii) ........... (iv) ..........."
The petitioner is claiming further amount on account of the G.S.T. from the r
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.