Ms Sri Pathy Associates Ksipl Jv vs. The State Oftamil Nadu

Held

The Court considered the limited prayer made by the petitioner's counsel. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for the GST liability payment or interest, as the petitioner confined their request to a direction for the consideration of their representation. Therefore, the Court issued a direction to the fourth respondent, the Superintending Engineer, Lower Cauvery Basin Circle, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2024. The Court mandated that the fourth respondent must pass appropriate orders on the said representation, based on merits and in accordance with the law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The main issue regarding the entitlement to the GST payment and interest was not decided on merits, but the procedural step of considering the representation was ordered.

Facts

M/s. Sri Pathy Associates – KSIPL (JV), the petitioner, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus. The petitioner requested the respondents to pay a sum equivalent to their GST liability concerning agreement No. 33ADB/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 between May 2019 and February 2024 regarding this matter. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel confined the prayer to a direction for the fourth respondent (Superintending Engineer) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2024 and pass appropriate orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the payment of a sum equivalent to their GST liability under agreement No. 33ADB/2015-16, as per G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 09.10.2017, along with interest? 2. Whether the fourth respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2024 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to be reimbursed for their GST liability as per the government order and had made numerous representations. They sought a direction for the payment of the equivalent sum and interest. Subsequently, they narrowed their prayer to seeking a direction for the consideration of their latest representation. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the respondents. However, by implication, their participation in the proceedings suggests they were called upon to respond to the petitioner's claims.