M/S Siddhivinayak Infrastructure Through Its Partner Shri Kolte vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary And Others
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2 to take a decision on the recommendation made by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the reimbursement of GST amounting to Rs. 42,51,126/-. The Court expected Respondent No. 2 to take this decision within a period of 90 days from the date of the order. The Court explicitly stated that Respondent No. 2 should not be influenced by any observations made in the present order. No notice was issued to Respondent No. 2 as the prayer was considered innocuous. The Court did not decide on the merits of the reimbursement claim itself but rather on the procedural aspect of Respondent No. 2 taking a decision on the existing recommendation.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Siddhivinayak Infrastructure, through its partner Shri Kolte, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. The petitioner sought a direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide on a recommendation made by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had recommended the reimbursement of GST amounting to Rs. 42,51,126/-. The petitioner highlighted that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had already signed this decision, and it was for Respondent No. 2 to issue appropriate orders. The petitioner relied on a previous order of the High Court in a similar case, Rishu Kichu Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, where 90 days were granted for payment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct Respondent No. 2 to take a decision on the recommendation made by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the reimbursement of GST amount of Rs. 42,51,126/-. The petitioner argued that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had already made a favorable recommendation, and it was incumbent upon Respondent No. 2 to act upon it. The petitioner also relied on a precedent from this Court granting 90 days for payment in an identical situation. The revenue (Union of India through Secretary and others) did not record any specific arguments against this prayer, as the Court proceeded to dispose of the petition based on the petitioner's prayer and the existing recommendation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8530 OF 2022 M/S SIDDHIVINAYAK INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI KOLTE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS Mr.Alok Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Deve, ASGI for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ.)
DATE : AUGUST 22, 2022 PER COURT :
The petitioner prays that prayer clause ‘C’ must be considered. Prayer clause ‘C’ reads as under :- “C. That in the alternate the Hon’ble Court may direct the respondent No.2, to take a decision on the recommendation made by respondent Nos. 3 and 4.”
The learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India represents respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner points out that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have already forwarded a decision with regard khs/August 2022/8530 to the reimbursement of the GST amount Rs.42,51,126/- . The said recommendation reads as under :- “passed for Rs.42,51,126/- (in words Forty two lacs, fifty one thousand, one hundred and twenty six only) and pay by cheque.” Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have signed
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 Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.