Munish Bhambri vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Munish Bhambri, a supplier of materials like interlocking pavers, sand, and cement under the MGNREGA Scheme, has approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petitioner claims that respondent No. 4 has failed to release the balance payment of Rs. 5,57,000/- despite the supply of materials as per the work order and submission of GST invoices. The petitioner had previously submitted a representation on 22.11.2021 and a legal notice on 22.02.2022 regarding the outstanding amount. The State of Punjab is the respondent. The proceedings are before the High Court.
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-release of the balance payment of Rs. 5,57,000/-. The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted GST invoices and had made prior representations and issued a legal notice. In view of the relief sought by the petitioner, the Court dispensed with the need for a formal response from the respondents. The Court directed respondent No. 4 to take notice of the pending representation/legal notice dated 22.02.2022 and decide it in accordance with law within one month of receiving a certified copy of the order. If the petitioner's claim was found acceptable, the due amount was to be paid forthwith. The petitioner would be entitled to interest at 6% per annum for delayed payment from the accrual of the cause of action until final realization. If the claim was not acceptable, respondent No. 4 was to pass a speaking order and communicate it to the petitioner within a reasonable time.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct the respondent to decide the petitioner's pending representation and legal notice within a specified period, as per the petitioner's submission? The petitioner argued that they would be satisfied if their legal notice and representation were directed to be decided by the respondents within a specified timeframe. The respondents, represented by Ms. Ambika Bedi, AAG, Punjab, accepted notice. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim or any counter-arguments to the petitioner's request for a direction to decide the representation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 21.03.2022
Munish Bhambri -Petitioner
Versus State of Punjab and others -Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present: Mr. N.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. (Proceedings through Video Conferencing) **** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) The grievance of the petitioner is that despite supply of material as per work order allocated to the petitioner, respondent No.4 has not released the balance payment of Rs.5,57,000/-. Petitioner was allocated the order for supply of interlocking pavers/tiles, sand, bajri, cement, bricks etc to different villages under the MGNREGA Scheme. Petitioner is running a factory under the name and style of Ganpati Tiles. Petitioner had supplied the aforesaid material as per work order and had also submitted the bills with respondent No.
As per tabulated information pleaded in para PRINCE SAINI 2022.03.22 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document No.4 of the petition, an amount of Rs.5,57,000/- is still due, for which original GST invoice
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.