M/S Mother INDIA Construction PVT. LTD. vs. The Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation LTD.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mother India Construction Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated 16.11.2019 issued by the Executive Engineer, BUIDCo, Patna West. This letter denied the petitioner's claim for increased prices of material/wages and Goods and Services Tax (GST) for works executed under Agreement No. BUIDCo/SIU-2/Yo-190/18-16 dated 27.03.2018 (Phase II and III). The petitioner sought quashing of this letter and a direction for payment of approximately Rs. 1,67,72,183.05 towards the GST claim, along with penal interest. The petitioner argued that the order was passed by an incompetent authority and lacked proper reasoning. The respondents, BUIDCo, had no objection to the matter being remanded.
Held
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2019. The matter was remanded back to the Chief General Manager, BUIDCo (Respondent No. 3), for reconsideration of the petitioner's representation dated 27.06.2019. The Court directed that the Chief General Manager must pass necessary orders strictly in accordance with the law. Before passing any order, the petitioner is to be put on notice and granted an opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise is to be completed expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks from the receipt of the order's copy, and any order passed must be communicated to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the GST claim or the increased material/wage costs, nor did it address the specific amount claimed by the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Executive Engineer, BUIDCo, Patna West, had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 16.11.2019 denying the petitioner's GST claim and claim for increased material/wage costs, given that the representation was made to the Chief General Manager, BUIDCo? (Question of jurisdiction) 2. Whether the order dated 16.11.2019 is sustainable in law for rejecting the petitioner's claim for differential GST liability and increased material/wage costs without considering Clause 35 of the NIT and without assigning proper reasons? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the Executive Engineer lacked the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Furthermore, the order was arbitrary and unsustainable as it failed to consider Clause 35 of the NIT and rejected the claim without providing any reasons. The petitioner relied on a previous order of the High Court in CWJC No. 1452 of 2019 in a similar matter. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, BUIDCo, stated they had no objection to the matter being remanded back to the competent authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 9 24-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(i)For quashing the Letter No. 787 dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure P6) issued by the Respondent-Executive Engineer, BUIDCo, Patna West, Patna 2/4 whereby and whereunder payment on account of increased prices of material/wages and GST Claim amount (differential tax liability) was denied to the petitioner for works executed under Agreement No. BUIDCo/SIU-2/Yo- 190/18-16 dated 27.03.2018 and (Phase II and III) as the same is unreasonable, arbitrary and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. (ii) For a direction upon the Respondents to make payment of GST Claim amount (differential tax liability) to the petitioner for works executed under Agreement No. BUIDCo/SIU-2/ Yo-190/18-16 dated 27.03.2018 and (Phase II and III) amounting to around Rs. 1,67,72,183.05 (Rupees one crore Sixty-Seven
lakhs
Seventy-Two Thousands One Hundred Eighty Three and Five Paisa) till date, in light of order dated 07.07.2019 in CWJC No. 1452 of 2019 by this Hon’ble Court, in a similar matter along with penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum.”
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure P6) on the two grounds; one that the order is passed by the Executive Engineer of the respondent-organization who does not have the juri iction of pass the said order. That the representation of the petitioner was given to the Chief General Manager, BUIDCo, Patna and; secondly on the ground that without taking into consideration the Clause 35 of the NIT, the 3/4 authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reasons. Therefore, learned counsel has prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the competent authority i.e. Respondent No. 3 herein to take a fresh look at the representation made by the petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents-BUIDCo. has stated that he has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the authority concerned for passing orders afresh in accordance with law.
Having regard to the above made submission, the impugned order dated 16.11.2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Chief General Manager, BUIDCo. i.e. Respondent No. 3 for considering the representation dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure P5) and pass necessary orders strictly in accordance with law.
It is needless to mention that before passing any order the petitioner shall be put on notice and given an opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Any order passed shall be communicated to the party.
4/4
With the above directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated.
Shakir/- (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.