Laxmi Electric And Motor Winding Works vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam LTD. And Another

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The Court directed that the petitioner may produce the proof of payment of GST before the respondents. Upon production of such proof, the respondents would be obligated to release the petitioner's payments, if any, in accordance with the law. The Court did not issue a mandamus for the direct deposit of GST by the respondents but rather conditioned the release of payments on the petitioner providing proof of GST payment. The issue of whether the respondents were legally obligated to deposit the GST amount directly with the department, irrespective of the petitioner's proof of payment, was not explicitly decided, as the petition was disposed of based on the parties' statements.

Facts

The petitioner, Laxmi Electric And Motor Winding Works, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another, to deposit the Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount deducted from the petitioner's bills. The petitioner claimed that the respondents were withholding payment of Rs. 41,98,314/-, representing the GST charged in their bills. The respondents' counsel stated that the petitioner had not yet provided proof of GST payment to support the amount charged. If such proof were produced, the payment would be released according to law. The writ petition was filed on an unspecified date in 2021, and the representations mentioned were dated January 22, 2019, and August 22, 2020.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the respondents to deposit the GST amount deducted from the petitioner's bills, considering the petitioner's claim of Rs. 41,98,314/- as GST. 2. Whether the respondents are obligated to release payments to the petitioner without proof of GST payment, or if such proof is a prerequisite for release. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents were deducting and failing to pay the GST amount charged in their bills, and sought a direction for its deposit with the GST Department. The petitioner also sought a direction to decide their representations dated 22.01.2019 and 22.08.2020. Respondents' Contention: The respondents contended that the petitioner had not yet furnished any proof of payment of GST to substantiate the amounts charged in the bills. They stated that if the petitioner produced such proof, the payment would be released in accordance with the law.