M/S Shiv Shankar Construction Company vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Facts
The petitioner was awarded a contract for the construction of a 75-meter span bridge in Dehradun district. The work was completed and the bridge was inaugurated in 2018 and has been in public use since then. However, the payment due to the petitioner, including the security amount and GST amount, has not been released. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to release the entire payment. The State counsel raised concerns about the quality of work and argued that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy.
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the specific issues raised regarding the quality of work or the appropriateness of the writ petition. Instead, the Court found that the ends of justice would be met by allowing the petitioner to make a representation to the Competent Authority. The Court directed that if the petitioner submits such a representation within ten days, the Competent Authority shall pass a reasoned order thereon within ten weeks thereafter, in accordance with the law. This approach avoids deciding the substantive claims but provides a procedural path for resolution. No specific GST provisions were discussed or interpreted.
Key Issues
1. Whether a writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to claim the release of payment for construction work, considering the dispute raised by the State regarding the quality of work? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the entire payment, including the security amount and GST, for the completed bridge construction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to release the full payment for the construction work, as the bridge was completed, inaugurated, and in public use. The petitioner implicitly argued that the authorities should release the due payments, including GST, as per the contract. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel argued that the writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for the relief sought. Additionally, the State raised an issue regarding the quality of the work performed by the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Sl. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 2239 of 2021 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
According to petitioner, he was awarded a contract for construction of a 75 meter span bridge at km. 14 Jauligrant- Thano- Raipur- Shahstradhar Road in district Dehradun. According to him, the work is completed to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities; the bridge was inaugurated in 2018 and it is being used by public at large ever since, but, the payment due to petitioner has not been released so far.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:-
“i. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to make entire payment, security amount, GST amount of the construction work conducting by the petitioner in pursuance of contract bond date no. 28/S.E- N.H.-10/16-17 Dated 15-9-2016 for construction of
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.