M/S L K Goyal Through Its Partner Premshankar Laxminarayan Agrawal vs. The Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court noted the statements made by both parties. The petitioner would approach the respondents within a week. The respondents' counsel made a statement that upon the execution of a supplementary agreement, the legitimate due and payable amount would be paid to the petitioner within six months from the date of execution of the supplementary agreement. The Court also observed the petitioner's submission that payment should be made to the GST Council and that the petitioner could approach the GST Council for modalities, which the Council would decide as per law. Based on these submissions and statements, the Court disposed of the writ petition with no costs. The specific legal provisions governing the payment modalities or the GST Council's jurisdiction were not elaborated upon in the operative part of the order, as the matter was settled by the parties' statements.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s L K Goyal, through its partner Premshankar Laxminarayan Agrawal, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. The petition concerned a dispute involving payments related to GST. The parties informed the Court that a supplementary agreement would need to be executed. The petitioner was to approach the respondents within a week. The respondents' counsel stated that upon execution of the supplementary agreement, the legitimate due and payable amount would be paid to the petitioner within six months from the date of execution. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the payment should be made by respondents 3 to 7 to the GST Council, and that the petitioner could approach the GST Council regarding modalities as permissible under law, for the Council to decide in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to pay the legitimate due and payable amount to the petitioner, and if so, what are the modalities for such payment under the GST regime? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning contractual obligations and GST payment mechanisms). Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the payment should be made by respondents 3 to 7 to the GST Council. They also contended that the petitioner should be permitted to approach the GST Council to evolve upon the modalities for payment, and that the GST Council would then take a decision in accordance with law. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents' counsel stated that upon the execution of a supplementary agreement, the legitimate due and payable amount would be paid to the petitioner within six months from the date of execution of the supplementary agreement. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the GST Council's role or the modalities beyond this payment commitment.