M/S The Golden Eagle Outsourcing Services And Another vs. Union Territory Chandigarh And Others

Facts

The petitioners, M/s The Golden Eagle Outsourcing Services and another, filed a Civil Writ Petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents (Union of Territory Chandigarh and others) to make payments of GST and Service Charges on Employees Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Dues. These payments were allegedly due under three contracts: GEMC-511687765081505 dated 27.05.2023, GEMC-511687772944842 dated 02.06.2023, and GEMC-511687755969340 dated 06.06.2023. The petitioners also sought interest at 12% per annum on the delayed payments. A legal notice dated 26.12.2023 was served on the respondents, but no tangible progress was made. The respondents' counsel appeared and stated that the legal notice was pending before the competent authority and requested the petition be disposed of to allow the authorities to deal with the grievances.

Held

The High Court disposed of the petition in terms of the statements made by the learned counsel for both parties. The Court noted the respondents' submission that the legal notice dated 26.12.2023 was pending before the competent authority and that it would be expedient to dispose of the petition to enable the respondents to deal with the petitioner's concerns. The respondents' counsel assured that appropriate orders would be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The Court expressed its sanguine hope that the authorities would look into the matter earnestly and pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time. The Court explicitly stated that the order would not constitute any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, as the competent authority would examine the petitioner's grievances strictly in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are liable to make payment of GST and Service Charges on Employees Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Dues in accordance with the terms and conditions of the specified contracts (GEMC-511687765081505, GEMC-511687772944842, and GEMC-511687755969340)? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the delayed payments from the date the amount became due till the date of payment? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents have failed to make the stipulated payments as per the contract terms, despite serving a legal notice. They sought a direction for payment and interest. Respondents' contention: The respondent-U.T., Chandigarh's counsel stated that the legal notice was pending before the competent authority and expressed inability to assist the court due to lack of instructions. They proposed disposing of the petition to allow the authorities to address the petitioner's concerns and assured that the petitioner would be heard before any orders are passed.