M/S. Bhavadharani Builders vs. The Superintending Engineer And Estate Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Bhavadharani Builders, represented by its Partner N.Palanikumar, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged proceedings issued by the first respondent, the Superintending Engineer & Estate Officer, Agricultural College and Research Institute, Coimbatore, dated 13.06.2023. The petitioner sought to quash these proceedings and direct the first respondent to consider their representation dated 26.04.2023, and to provide the GST tax amount as per GST Act provisions for works rendered to respondents 3 to 5. The respondents included various Deans of Agricultural Colleges and Research Institutes, the Vice Chancellor of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, and the Proper Officer (ST).

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the legality of the impugned proceedings. The learned Counsel for the petitioner sought permission from the Court to withdraw the writ petition, making an endorsement to that effect. Recording this submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The petitioner was granted liberty to work out their remedy before the appropriate forum. No order as to costs was made. The specific GST provisions or the amount in dispute were not discussed or decided by the Court as the matter was withdrawn.

Key Issues

The primary issue was whether the proceedings issued by the first respondent were illegal and if the petitioner was entitled to a direction for the consideration of their representation and the provision of GST tax amounts. The petitioner argued that the impugned proceedings were illegal and sought relief to have them quashed. They also sought a direction for the first respondent to consider their representation dated 26.04.2023 and to provide the GST tax amount as per the provisions of the GST Act for the supply of works rendered to respondents 3 to 5. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents regarding the legality of the proceedings or the GST tax amount. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.