Sunil Kumar Suman vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioners, who are contractors, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider their representations dated January 13, 2021, April 5, 2021, and February 19, 2022. They sought reimbursement of wrongly deducted amounts under GST at two percent and security deposit at ten percent from payments made for work executed, arguing there was no provision for GST liability. They also sought payment of ten percent of the approved cost of the work order for GST liabilities. The petitioners later stated they would be content if a direction was issued to the Chief Engineer, Flood Control and Water Drainage, Birpur, Supaul (Respondent No. 4), to consider and decide a representation they would file within four weeks.

Held

The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. It accepted the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they would be content with a direction to the concerned authority to consider their representation. The Court directed the petitioners to approach the authority concerned within four weeks by filing a representation for redressal of their grievances. The authority concerned was directed to consider and dispose of the representation expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within four months from the date of its filing, while following principles of natural justice and affording due opportunity of hearing and placing relevant materials. Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to alternative remedies and to approach the appropriate forum/Court should the need arise subsequently. All issues were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners' representations regarding reimbursement of wrongly deducted GST and security deposit, and payment for GST liabilities, as per Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that amounts were wrongly deducted under GST and security deposit, and that there was no provision for GST liability on the work executed. They sought a direction for reimbursement and payment of GST liabilities. Revenue's Argument: The respondents stated that if a representation is filed by the petitioners, the concerned authority would consider and dispose of it expeditiously. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the merits of the GST deductions or liabilities.