M/S G.S. Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s G.S. Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondents 5 and 6 to upload pending invoices on the ERP portal and release payments totaling Rs. 5,21,169.42 (plus applicable GST) and Rs. 10,18,591. The petitioner also sought release of applicable GST on these amounts. The Court noted that the decision to make payment rests with respondent no. 5, and no such decision had been made by that authority to date. The Court observed that facts were not ascertained. The petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court.
Held
The Court held that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending or calling for a counter-affidavit at that stage, given that the facts were not ascertained and no decision had been made by the competent authority (respondent no. 5). The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction. The petitioner is to file a fresh representation before respondent no. 5, supported by a personal affidavit and all relevant documents. Respondent no. 5 is directed to deal with and decide this representation strictly in accordance with law within two months of the petitioner's compliance. Any amount found due and payable is to be paid out within a further period of two months after the decision. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim for payment or the uploading of invoices.
Key Issues
1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct respondents 5 and 6 to upload pending invoices on the ERP portal and release payments to the petitioner, M/s G.S. Enterprises, along with applicable GST. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought a direction for the immediate uploading of pending invoices and release of due payments, implying a right to such action based on the invoices presented. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents. However, the Court's observation that "Facts are not ascertained" and "No such decision has been made by that authority till date" suggests that the respondents had not yet processed or decided on the petitioner's claim.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89433-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17089 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S G.S. Enterprises Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bashisth Narain Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shrawan Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Bashisth Narain Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 to 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The writ petition has been filed for the following main relief : "A) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent 5 & 6, to upload the pending invoices of the Petitioners on the ERP portal immediately and release the payment of Rs.5,21,169.42/- alongwith applicable GST to M/s G.S. Enterprises and Rs.10,18,591/- respectively."
Facts are not ascertained. In any case the decision to make payment has to be made by the respondent no.
No such decision has been made by that authority till date.
In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.