M/S Myc Infra PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 Others

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition should be disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the Empowered Standing Committee. The Court reasoned that the dispute concerning the payment of GST involves factual considerations that are best addressed by the Empowered Standing Committee, as stipulated in Clause 24 of the Standard Bidding Document for PMGSY, which deals with the Dispute Redressal System. The Court explicitly stated that its order should not be construed as an adjudication of the petitioner's claim on merits. The Competent Authority (Empowered Standing Committee) is to act independently without being influenced by any observations made by this Court. The petitioner was directed to file a representation/claim before the Empowered Standing Committee within 10 days, and the Committee was directed to decide the claim within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order along with the claim.

Facts

M/s Myc Infra Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to compel respondents no. 4, 5, and 6 to pay Rs. 1,15,91,455/- along with interest, and to consider and decide their letters dated 20.12.2020 and 16.09.2021. The petitioner claimed entitlement to this amount under the head of Goods and Service Tax (GST). During the proceedings, it was revealed that Rs. 92,54,844/- had already been paid to the petitioner, a fact not disputed. The respondents argued that a factual dispute regarding GST payment existed, which could be resolved by the Empowered Standing Committee as per Clause 24 of the Standard Bidding Document for PMGSY, dealing with dispute redressal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing respondents no. 4, 5, and 6 to pay the claimed amount of Rs. 1,15,91,455/- along with interest, specifically for Goods and Service Tax (GST). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that they are entitled to the claimed amount under the heading of GST, which is to be paid by respondents no. 4 and 5 to the petitioner. They relied on their representations dated 20.12.2020 and 16.09.2021. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents (Union of India and others, specifically respondents no. 4 and 5) argued that the dispute involves factual complexities concerning GST payments. They contended that Clause 24 of the Standard Bidding Document for PMGSY, which outlines the Dispute Redressal System, provides a mechanism for resolving such disputes through the Empowered Standing Committee. They submitted that this committee is empowered to decide all disputes arising out of the contract, including issues related to GST payments.