Vandana Medical Stores vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Vandana Medical Stores, filed a writ petition challenging an order of attachment dated October 1, 2020, passed by Respondent No. 4, the Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Circle-IV, Durg. The petitioner sought to set aside this order and direct Respondent No. 3, Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited, to release outstanding payments for services rendered. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the impugned order of attachment had been recalled by the respondent authorities. However, the payment against supply had not yet been released. The petitioner requested permission to make a detailed representation to Respondent No. 3, with a direction for the authority to decide on the release of admissible outstanding amounts within a stipulated time.

Held

The Court noted that the order impugned, dated October 1, 2020, had already been withdrawn by the respondent authorities during the pendency of the petition. Consequently, the primary relief sought by the petitioner to set aside the attachment order was rendered infructuous. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that despite the withdrawal of the attachment order, the outstanding payment had not been released. Therefore, the Court permitted the petitioner to make a detailed representation to Respondent No. 3 within 15 days. The authority concerned was directed to consider and decide this representation preferably within a further period of 30 days, in accordance with the law. The Court did not make any specific findings on the merits of the outstanding payment dispute itself, deferring it to the representation process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should set aside the order of attachment dated October 1, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Circle-IV, Durg, and direct the release of outstanding payments to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order of attachment dated October 1, 2020, was impugned and sought its setting aside. They also contended that despite the withdrawal of this order, the payment for supplies made had not been released. Therefore, they requested permission to submit a detailed representation to Respondent No. 3 for the release of admissible outstanding amounts. Respondents' Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the issues raised by the petitioner. However, it notes that there was no objection from the other side to the petitioner's submission regarding the withdrawal of the impugned order and the request for a representation.