R.N. Contractors And Suppliers, Ayodhya Thru. Its Partners And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 5 Others

Held

The Court did not decide on the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the petitioners to submit a fresh, detailed representation to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Ayodhya Region, within two weeks, accompanied by all supporting documents and a certified copy of the court's order. The Chief Engineer was then instructed to consider and decide this representation in accordance with the law, providing a reasoned and speaking order within two months of its submission. The Court explicitly stated that it had not applied itself to the merits of the case and all questions were left open for the competent authority to decide. No specific GST provisions were discussed or interpreted.

Facts

The petitioners, R.N. Contractors And Suppliers, Ayodhya, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the respondents, including the State of U.P. and various departments, to pay outstanding dues amounting to over Rs. 3.15 Crores related to GST. The petitioners argued that their grievance would be adequately addressed if their representation for payment was considered and decided promptly. The standing counsel for the State had no objection to this course of action. The High Court directed the petitioners to submit a fresh, detailed representation to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Ayodhya Region, within two weeks, along with supporting documents and a certified copy of the court's order. The Chief Engineer was then mandated to consider and decide this representation with a reasoned and speaking order within two months of receiving it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned opposite parties to pay the petitioners' GST dues of over Rs. 3.15 Crores within a reasonable time? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners primarily sought a direction for the payment of their outstanding GST dues. They submitted that their grievance would be sufficiently met if their representation for payment was considered and decided in a time-bound manner. Respondent's contention: The learned standing counsel for the State had no objection to the petitioners' request for a time-bound consideration of their representation.