M/S Veer Enterprises, Lko. Thru. Prop. Shri Ravi Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it permitted the petitioner to make a fresh, detailed representation to respondent no. 2, the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department (PWD), Lakhimpur Kheri. This representation should include all grievances, a copy of the writ petition with annexures, and supporting documents, to be submitted within two weeks. Respondent no. 2 is directed to consider and decide this representation in accordance with the law by a reasoned and speaking order within two months of receiving the certified copy of the order and the representation. 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.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Veer Enterprises, through its proprietor Shri Ravi Kumar Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to pay GST at 12% with 18% interest on delayed payments. The disputed amounts relate to two work agreements: Rs. 4,26,253.64 under agreement no. 47/E.E.(I) dated 14/12/2017 and Rs. 4,26,776.22 under agreement no. 48/E.E.(I) dated 14.12.2017. The petitioner's counsel submitted that their grievance would be sufficiently addressed if their representation for payment was considered and decided within a time-bound manner. The learned standing counsel for the State had no objection to this course of action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondents to make payment of GST at 12% with 18% interest on delayed payments for the specified work agreements, as prayed by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought a mandamus for payment of GST at 12% with 18% interest on delayed payments concerning two work agreements. The core of their grievance was the delay in receiving these payments. They argued that their primary relief would be met if their representation for these payments was considered and decided promptly. Respondent's Contention: The learned standing counsel for the State had no objection to the petitioner's request for a time-bound consideration of their representation. The State did not argue on the merits of the GST payment or the interest claim at this stage.