M/S Pratishtha Enterprises And Contractor And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Held
The Court acknowledged that the respondents cannot withhold any amount that they may claim to be admittedly due to the petitioners. While no positive direction was issued for immediate payment at this stage, the Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The petitioners are required to file a fresh representation/claim before respondent no.3 within two weeks, annexing all supporting material and evidence. Respondent no.3 is then directed to examine this claim and issue a reasoned communication to the petitioners within one month. Crucially, any amount found to be admittedly payable to the petitioners must be paid within the same one-month period. The Court did not decide on the specific amounts claimed but directed a procedural mechanism for their resolution.
Facts
The petitioners, M/s Pratishtha Enterprises And Contractor and another, claim to have executed civil works for the Nagar Panchayat- Bilgram, District- Kasganj. They are claiming an amount of Rs. 4,44,031/- for construction of a barat ghar, Rs. 1,40,000/- as earnest money, and Rs. 65,979/- towards GST liability. The petitioners assert that the measurement book has been verified, and a certificate confirming satisfactory work has been issued. They also rely on a direction for the refund of their earnest money. The petition was filed before the High Court challenging the withholding of amounts due to them.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents can withhold amounts admittedly due to the petitioners, particularly concerning the GST liability and earnest money, when the work has been completed satisfactorily and verified. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the respondents cannot withhold any amount that is admittedly due to them, especially considering the satisfactory completion and verification of the civil works executed. They are seeking payment for the work done, refund of earnest money, and reimbursement of GST liability. Respondent's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent-Nagar Panchayat as no one appeared on their behalf.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21746 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Pratishtha Enterprises And Contractor And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshu Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Manoj Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.
List revised. No one appeared for the respondent-Nagar Panchayat.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, it transpires that the petitioners claim to have executed certain civil works for the Nagar Panchayat- Bilgram, District- Kasganj. Thus, the petitioners claim entitlement of Rs.4,44,031/- towards construction of barat ghar, Rs.1,40,000/- towards earnest money and Rs.65,979/- towards GST liability. He further states that measurement book has been verified and in fact, a certificate has also been issued as to the work being satisfactory. Further, he relies on a direction issued for refund of his earnest money.
In view of such facts, though no positive direction is being issued to the respondents no.2 and 3 to make any payment at this stage, it does appear that the respondents cannot withhold any amount that they may claim to be admittedly due to the petitioners.
Ac
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.