Shri Laxmi Stores vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Laxmi Stores, supplied laboratory equipment, glassware, lab apparatus, and plastic-ware to Eklavya Vidyalaya, Dharamjagarh, District Raigarh, pursuant to a supply order from respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner (Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department) Raigarh. The total value of the supplied goods, including 18% GST, amounted to Rs. 2,39,699.36/- plus Rs. 2,84,542/-. The petitioner raised bills for payment but has not yet received the amount. Despite several oral requests and written representations submitted on September 6, 2023, and May 21, 2024, to respondent No. 3, the payment remains outstanding. The petitioner contends that payment was due immediately after the supply of goods as per the rate contract. The writ petition seeks a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to clear the admissible amount and provide interest for the delay.

Held

The Court, considering the facts and circumstances, including the petitioner's submission that the laboratory items were supplied in March 2023 and payment was to be disbursed within 20 days of receipt of articles, disposed of the writ petition without commenting on the merits of the petitioner's claim. The Court permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 (who also holds the ex-officio post of Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha). The concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide this representation expeditiously, preferably within 45 days from the date of receipt, and thereafter disburse the undisputed claim raised by the petitioner. The Court did not make any specific findings on the GST component or the entitlement to interest, leaving these aspects to be decided by the authorities upon consideration of the fresh representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment of Rs. 2,39,699.36/- plus 18% GST for the laboratory items supplied, as per the terms of the supply order and rate contract? (Question of law and fact, concerning contract law and GST provisions). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they had supplied the laboratory items as per the supply order issued by respondent No. 3 and that the total value of the supply, including GST, was Rs. 2,39,699.36/- plus Rs. 2,84,542/-. They contended that payment was due immediately after the supply of goods as per the rate contract and that despite multiple representations, the payment had not been made. The petitioner relied on the supply order and the rate contract terms. Revenue/State's arguments: The State's counsel submitted that if the petitioner's claim for disbursement of the amount was still pending consideration, it would be considered in accordance with law. No specific arguments were made regarding the validity of the claim or the GST component.