Maa Vaishnoo Infra Venture PVT.LTD.Thru.Director Dhiraj Singh Tomar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Maa Vaishnoo Infra Venture Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner had performed work for the opposite parties, and while the principal amount for the work had been received, the amount pertaining to the difference in the GST rate (6%) and retention money remained unpaid. The petitioner sought payment of these outstanding amounts from the opposite parties.

Held

The Court directed the petitioner to approach Opposite Party No. 4 (an unspecified authority) to claim the outstanding amounts. Upon receiving the claim, Opposite Party No. 4 is mandated to verify the facts and take a decision in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made with expedition, within a period of two months from the date of the petitioner's approach. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST rate difference or retention money dispute but provided a procedural mechanism for resolution. The specific provision of GST law or contract under which the differential GST or retention money is claimed was not explicitly discussed or decided upon by the Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the differential GST amount of 6% and the retention money from the opposite parties? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the principal amount for the work performed had been received, but the differential GST amount and retention money were still outstanding and payable. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondent State of U.P. or the other opposite parties.