M/S Super Trading Company vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the representation dated January 12, 2022, filed by the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court directed respondent No. 3 to forthwith take remedial measures to account for the GST amount deducted from the petitioner's bills. The entire exercise was to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the GST was correctly deducted or not, but focused on ensuring the representation was addressed and appropriate action taken regarding the deducted amount. The specific provision under which the GST deduction was made or the obligation to deposit was not explicitly discussed or decided upon by the Court.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Super Trading Company, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to deposit GST deducted from its bills or, alternatively, to decide its representation dated January 12, 2022. The petitioner's case is that respondent No. 3 made a payment of Rs. 34,84,000/- after deducting Rs. 1,18,100/- as GST, which was not deposited with the department. The respondent No. 3, through its counsel, stated that the petitioner's representation would be considered and remedial measures would be taken. The High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the representation and take remedial measures to account for the deducted GST amount within six weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether respondent No. 3 is liable to deposit the GST amount deducted from the petitioner's bills. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the GST amount deducted from its bills by respondent No. 3, totaling Rs. 1,18,100/-, ought to have been deposited with the department. The petitioner sought a direction for the deposit of this amount. Respondent's Contention: The respondent No. 3, through its counsel, stated that the representation made by the petitioner dated January 12, 2022, would be considered and remedial measures would be taken. No specific legal arguments were presented by the respondent, but an undertaking was given regarding the consideration of the representation and subsequent action.