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 work done and successfully completed under agreement no. 03-CMBD/17-18. The work involved the maintenance of a road amounting to Rs. 1,36,15,254/-. The petitioner claims payment for five years of maintenance, of which only one year's payment has been made, despite successful completion and entry into the Measurement Book. The petition also seeks payment for the difference between VAT and GST deductions (Rs. 7,38,070/-), royalty deductions (Rs. 1,06,085/-), and penal interest on the outstanding amounts. The petitioner had submitted multiple representations to the respondent authorities regarding these pending payments.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2, the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, to consider the representations made by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. If the petitioner's claim is found to be genuine, Respondent No. 2 shall take necessary steps for making the payment of the due amount. In case the claim is rejected, a reasoned order must be passed, providing reasons for the rejection. The Court also stipulated that the petitioner must be given an opportunity of hearing before any order is passed, and any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner. The Court did not delve into the merits of the specific claims regarding maintenance, GST/VAT difference, royalty, or interest, deferring these to the consideration by the concerned authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment for the full five-year maintenance period of the road work, considering the work was successfully completed and recorded in the Measurement Book, and only one year's payment has been made? (Mixed question of law and fact). 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the difference between GST and VAT deductions, along with interest, for work done after the applicability of GST? (Question of law). 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the refund of amounts deducted under the head of royalty, along with interest? (Question of law). 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to penal interest at 18% on all outstanding amounts from the date they became due until actual payment? (Question of law). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they have completed the work to the satisfaction of the authorities and submitted bills, but payments have not been made. They relied on their representations dated 12.01.2024, 22.04.2024, and 02.08.2024, and sought a direction for payment in accordance with law. They also highlighted the policy decision of the Central Government regarding GST applicability. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the respondents stated they had no objection if a direction was given to the concerned authority to consider the petitioner's representation strictly in accordance with law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 2 02-09-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- “I. For directing and commanding the responding authorities for making payment of the work done and successes fully completed by the petitioner to the satisfaction of respondent authorities pursuant to agreement no. 03-CMBD/17-18 along with maintenance of 2/4 5 years. (Name of the work- MR of Road from NH-31 to Harangi Tola Dukha Tola to Maheshkhunt Railway Station M/R in Gogri Block amounting to Rs. 1,36,15,254/-, of which payment of only one year has been made inspite of the fact that maintenance of entire five years has been successfully completed by the petitioner and the maintenance work done have been entered into Measurement Book bearing MB no. 213/17-18, total amounting to Rs. 8,62,760/ along with interest. II. For further 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 now provision of GST is applicable in place of VAT and GST has been deducted and to refund the difference amount amounting to Rs. 7,38,070.00 along with interest from the dated it became due till actual dated of payment. III. For payment of amount deducted under the head of royalty (MD) amounting to Rs. 1,06,085. 00. IV. For making payment of entire amount of the work done, (amount of maintenance work of four years, royalty miscellaneous, difference from VAT to GST) by the petitioner along with penal interest @ 18% from date it became dues till actual date of payment.
3/4 V. For making payment of cost of litigation taking into consideration the fact that after completion of the work allotted to the petitioner payments have not been made to the petitioner, on one pretext or the other (due to paucity of funds and other reasons) and petitioner has been compel to approach before this Hon'ble court.”
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is permitted to change the nomenclature of Respondent No. 2 as “the Additional Chief Secretary-cum- Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna” in place of “the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that after completion of the works entrusted to the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted the bills but till date the same has not been paid. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has given representations dated 12.01.2024, 22.04.2024 and 02.08.2024 and a direction may be given to the authority concerned to consider the same and make the necessary payments in accordance with law.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that he has no objection if a direction is 4/4 given to the concerned authority to consider the representation made by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.
Having regard to the above made submissions, the present CWJC is disposed of directing the Respondent No. 2 herein to consider the representations made by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine, the Respondent No. 2 shall take necessary steps for making the payment of the amount due to the petitioner. In case the authority concerned rejects the claim of the petitioner, he shall pass a reasoned order, giving reasons for the same.
It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing. Any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.
With the above directions, the present CWJC is disposed of.
Gauravkr/- (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.