Ms Khidmat Through Its Proprietor Sunil Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Khidmat, through its proprietor Sunil Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The petitioner had undertaken catering and maintenance services at Bokaro Parisadan and officer's Rest House as per an agreement dated 22.10.2016. The petitioner claimed that despite completing the work, dues were not paid properly. The petitioner had also filed a representation on 13.10.2018, but no action was taken. The petition sought payment of arrears of work done, including interest, and also requested the respondents to pay the additional GST from 1.7.2017 to avoid penalties.

Held

The Court acknowledged that most of the petitioner's prayers had become infructuous, except for prayers 1(a) and 1(b). Regarding prayer 1(a), concerning the payment of arrears for work done, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, with the writ petition treated as a representation. The Deputy Commissioner was ordered to form a committee of three officers to inspect documents, determine if the work was completed, and if the petitioner was entitled to dues. If dues were found payable and unpaid, the Deputy Commissioner was to take steps for prompt payment. If any part of the claim was disputed, the petitioner was at liberty to approach the Civil Court. Regarding prayer 1(b), concerning the payment of additional GST, the Court's directions implicitly placed the onus on the Deputy Commissioner to consider the petitioner's claim for dues, which would include the GST component if found payable. The Court did not expressly decide on the liability for GST but directed a comprehensive review of the petitioner's claims. The entire process was to be concluded within sixteen weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment for the arrears of work done as a caterer and caretaker, including interest, as per the agreement dated 22.10.2016 with the District Nazarat Bokaro? (Mixed question of law and fact, relating to contractual obligations and payment terms). 2. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the additional GST charged from July 2017 onwards, to prevent the petitioner from being penalized? (Question of law, concerning the applicability and payment of GST on services rendered after its introduction). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they had completed the work as per the agreement and were entitled to the outstanding payments. They also argued that the additional GST charged from July 2017 onwards was causing financial hardship and potential penalties, and therefore, the respondents should bear this cost. The petitioner relied on their representation dated 13.10.2018. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents. However, the court's directions suggest that the respondents' liability for the claimed dues and GST was to be determined.