Ms Sri Pathy Assoceates PVT LTD vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu

Held

The Court noted the petitioner's submission that they would be satisfied with a direction to the concerned authority to dispose of their representation dated 27.02.2024 within a time frame. The respondents confirmed the redesignation of offices and identified the redesignated fifth respondent as the appropriate authority. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the redesignated fifth respondent within two weeks of receiving the order. Upon receipt of this fresh representation, the said authority was directed to consider it on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within eight weeks thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction. No issue regarding the entitlement to GST reimbursement or interest was decided on merits.

Facts

M/s. Sri Pathy Associates Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents, including various departments of the State of Tamil Nadu, to pay a sum equivalent to the GST liability incurred by the petitioner concerning agreement No. 91/BC/MW/TRY/2015-16, as per G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 09.10.2017, along with interest. The petitioner had made multiple representations to the authorities regarding this matter between May 2019 and February 2024. The respondents indicated that the offices of the fifth and sixth respondents had been redesignated, and the redesignated fifth respondent was the appropriate authority to address the petitioner's representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for payment of a sum equivalent to their GST liability under agreement No. 91/BC/MW/TRY/2015-16 as per G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 09.10.2017, along with interest? The petitioner argued that they are entitled to reimbursement of GST paid, referencing G.O.Ms.No.296. They sought a direction for payment and interest, having made numerous representations. The petitioner ultimately sought satisfaction if a direction was issued to the concerned authority to dispose of their representation dated 27.02.2024 within a stipulated time. The respondents stated that the offices of the fifth and sixth respondents were redesignated and that the redesignated fifth respondent was the appropriate authority to dispose of the petitioner's representation. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim for GST reimbursement or interest.