M/S Aastha And Saumya Construction vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Aastha And Saumya Construction, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking payment for works done, specifically the renovation of tube wells in various panchayats of Begusarai district, amounting to Rs. 37,87,887/-. The petitioner also sought the refund of the difference in Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid at 18% instead of the estimated 12%, along with interest. The petitioner claimed that their representation dated 24.02.2026 regarding these grievances had not been acted upon by the respondent authorities, specifically respondent No. 2, the Additional Chief Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. The respondent-State contended that the petitioner's representation lacked proper signature and seal of receipt.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage with the consent of both counsels, without delving into the merits or demerits of the case. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh, suitable representation to respondent No. 2, the Additional Chief Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, within two weeks. Upon receipt of this representation, the authority was directed to consider it strictly in accordance with law and take a suitable decision. If the petitioner's claim was found to be genuine, necessary steps for payment were to be taken. Conversely, if the claim was not found to merit consideration, a reasoned order for rejection was to be passed. The petitioner was to be notified if any clarifications or documents were required, with an opportunity to submit them. The entire process was to be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, and any decision taken was to be communicated to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the substantive claims regarding payment or GST refund.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities are liable to make payment for the works successfully completed by the petitioner, amounting to Rs. 37,87,887/-? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the difference in GST paid (18% vs. 12%) along with interest, for the works done? 3. Whether the inaction of the respondent authorities in making the payments and refunding the GST difference infringes upon the petitioner's constitutional rights, including the right to livelihood and Article 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the works were successfully completed to the satisfaction of the authorities and that bills had been recorded in the Measurement Book. They contended that the GST rate was increased without proper justification and that the difference should be refunded with interest. The petitioner also asserted that the inaction of the authorities violated their fundamental rights and that similarly situated contractors had received such payments, indicating discriminatory treatment. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent-State argued that the petitioner's representation did not bear the signature or seal of the receiving authority. They submitted that if a fresh representation were submitted, it would be considered in accordance with the law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 2 16-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- “I. For directing and commanding the responding authorities for making payment of the works done under different panchayats of District of Begusarai, of renovation of tube wells and successes fully completed by the petitioner to the satisfaction of respondent authorities. (Name of the work-Renovation of tube wells in different Panchayats of District of Begusarai) amounting to Rs. 37,87,887/- II. For directing and commanding the respondent authorities for making payment of the work done by the petitioner taking into consideration the fact that pursuant to policy decision of the Central Government and also considering the fact that the bills have now been recorded in Measurement Book taking into consideration the increased provision of GST @18% as applicable in place of GST 12% as mentioned in the estimate and the same has been Paid/deducted from the bills of the petitioner and to refund the difference amount along with interest @18%, from the date it became due till actual dated of payment. III. For making payment of entire amount of dues of the work done by the petitioner and difference of GST from 12% to 18%, to the petitioner along with penal interest @ 18% from date it became dues till actual date of payment. IV. For holding that the action/inaction on the part of respondent authorities in not paying the dues amount of work done and difference of GST, has infringed the constitutional right, right to livelihood, Article 14,16,19(1)(g), 21 of the petitioner and a discriminatory attitude as against the petitioner by the respondent authorities, as the difference amount has already been paid to different similarly situated contractors and for directing and commanding the respondent authorities to pay the same forthwith along with dues amount of the work done by the petitioner. V. For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled under law in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
3/4
Without going into the merits or demerits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsels.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given a representation dated 24.02.2026 ventilating his grievance to the respondent No. 2 herein (i.e., the Additional Chief Secretary Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna) but till date the authorities have not acted on the same and the amount due to the petitioner not paid. Learned counsel therefore, seeks a direction from this Hon’ble Court to direct the respondent No. 2 herein to dispose of the said representation by fixing a time frame.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the alleged representation made by the petitioner does not have any signature or seal of the authority having received the same. Learned counsel submits that in case the petitioner submits a fresh representation, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and necessary orders will be passed.
Having regard to the above made submissions, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to 4/4 submit a suitable representation before the respondent No. 2 herein ventilating his grievance within a period of two weeks from today. On such representation being given, the authority shall consider the same strictly in accordance with and take a suitable decision. In case the authority comes to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine, he shall take necessary steps for making the payment. However, in case the authority comes to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner does not merit any consideration, he shall pass a reasoned order giving reasons for such rejection. If any clarifications/ documents are required by the authority, the petitioner shall be put on notice and giving an opportunity of submitting the same. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the representation from the petitioner. Any decision taken by the authority shall be communicated to the party.
With the above direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
Ayush/- (A. Abhishek Reddy, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.