M/S Spica Projects And Infrastructures PVT LTD Through Its Director Sontosh Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Spica Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., is aggrieved by the delay in the release of Rs. 1,50,15,093.04, which represents outstanding dues payable to it on account of the differential amount of additional statutory burden under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the respondent-authorities have failed to take a decision on the matter as directed by this Court in WP(T) No. 2108 of 2019 and batch cases. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, bringing on record a decision dated November 10, 2023. The petitioner's counsel submitted that this decision is illegal but, in light of this subsequent development giving rise to a fresh cause of action, sought permission to withdraw the present contempt case.

Held

The Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the contempt case. The petitioner's counsel stated that while the decision dated November 10, 2023, was considered patently illegal, it gave rise to a fresh cause of action. Therefore, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present contempt proceedings. The Court, finding no impediment, accorded permission and consequently dismissed the contempt case as withdrawn. The Court did not delve into the legality of the decision dated November 10, 2023, as the case was disposed of on the petitioner's withdrawal. The specific amount in dispute, Rs. 1,50,15,093.04, was noted as the outstanding dues related to the additional statutory burden under the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the decision dated November 10, 2023, passed by the respondent-authorities, concerning the petitioner's claim for differential GST dues, is legally sustainable, considering the prior directions of this Court in WP(T) No. 2108 of 2019 and batch cases? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the decision dated November 10, 2023, is patently illegal. However, due to this subsequent development, which creates a fresh cause of action, the petitioner sought to withdraw the contempt case. Revenue's Argument: The respondent-authorities filed a counter-affidavit bringing on record the decision dated November 10, 2023. No specific argument was recorded for the revenue regarding the legality of this decision in the context of the previous writ petitions.