M/S Mazboot Infrastructure PVT. LTD. Thru. Director Syed Shakeb Ahsan And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 9 Others

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Mazboot Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director Syed Shakeb Ahsan and another, had undertaken work for official opposite parties. While payment for the work was made, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount recoverable by the petitioners from these official parties was not paid. The petitioners contended that this GST amount, once received, would need to be deposited with the GST Department. To address this, the petitioners submitted a representation dated November 22, 2024, followed by a reminder dated December 10, 2024, neither of which had been considered by the authorities. The writ petition was filed seeking consideration of these representations.

Held

The Court directed that the representation of the petitioner dated November 22, 2024, and the reminder dated December 10, 2024, be considered in accordance with the law. This consideration is to be undertaken after verifying the facts. A considered decision is to be taken expeditiously, specifically within one month from the date of the order. The decision reached is to be communicated to the petitioner. The Court clarified that the consideration of the representation should be limited solely to the issue of the payment of the GST amount. Any other relief sought in the representation, beyond the GST payment, need not be considered by the authorities. The petition was disposed of based on these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the official opposite parties are liable to pay the GST amount recoverable by the petitioner for the work performed, and if so, within what timeframe? (This issue turns on the contractual obligations and the GST regime concerning payments for services rendered). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the GST amount is recoverable from the official opposite parties and must be paid to them so that it can be deposited with the GST Department. They relied on their representation and reminder dated November 22, 2024, and December 10, 2024, respectively, which had not been considered. Respondent: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent State of U.P. or the other nine respondents.