M/S Raj Construction Through Its Power Of Attorney Mr. Rahul vs. Union Finance And Corporate Affairs Minister Thru. Chairmanship And Ors.

Held

The Court did not decide on the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the petitioner to make a fresh, detailed representation to respondent no. 5, the Executive Engineer, Faizabad/Ayodhya Development Authority, within two weeks. This representation should include all grievances, a copy of the writ petition, annexures, and supporting documents. Respondent no. 5 is then mandated 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 remain open for the competent authority to decide. No specific findings were made on the issues raised, and no operative directions beyond the consideration of the representation were issued.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Raj Construction, through its Power of Attorney Mr. Rahul, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents, specifically the Executive Engineer, Development Authority, District Ayodhya (respondent no. 5), to comply with Letter No. 177/09/2022-T.R.U. issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Tax Research Unit), Government of India. This letter pertains to the implementation of GST at 18% on all construction works from July 18, 2022. The petitioner also sought a mandamus to release the pending amount of Rs. 11,07,970/- for running bills, which represents the increased total amount due to the GST provision. The petitioner argued that their grievance would be substantially addressed if their representation was considered and decided promptly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Executive Engineer, Development Authority, District Ayodhya, is legally obligated to comply with Letter No. 177/09/2022-T.R.U. issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Tax Research Unit), Government of India, regarding the implementation of 18% GST on construction works from July 18, 2022? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the pending amount of Rs. 11,07,970/- for running bills, representing the increased total amount due to the aforementioned GST provision? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Executive Engineer should comply with the Ministry of Finance letter and release the pending amount. They stated that their grievance would be substantially met if their representation was considered and decided in a time-bound manner. 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.