M/S N.S. Publicity INDIA PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with specific observations. It directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation with all details of deposits before the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of NOIDA. The CEO was instructed to consider the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate orders within one month. If it was found that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the advance license fee of Rs. 66,55,000/- for the earlier bus shelter contract, this amount was to be adjusted against the current demand. The Court also ordered that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner until the CEO's decision, provided the petitioner deposited 50% of the outstanding amount (after deducting Rs. 66,55,000/-) within 15 days. The issue of GST applicability was implicitly to be considered by the CEO during the adjustment process.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S N.S. Publicity India Pvt Ltd, entered into an agreement with NOIDA Authority on September 9, 2010, for the construction, operation, and maintenance of 50 bus shelters for 10 years, with the right to advertise. The petitioner paid Rs. 30,25,000/- for Package I and Rs. 36,30,000/- for Package II. The petitioner claims the contract was not acted upon, as NOIDA Authority invited fresh tenders for the same purpose on January 12, 2011. Subsequently, the petitioner received demand notices, including one dated February 1, 2018, for a license fee related to a foot over bridge contract, with GST levied. The petitioner had also entered into a separate agreement for a foot over bridge. The petitioner sought adjustment of the advance license fee of Rs. 66,55,000/- paid for bus shelters against the current demand and argued that GST was not applicable. Despite a representation, no action was taken.

Key Issues

1. Whether the advance license fee of Rs. 66,55,000/- paid by the petitioner for bus shelters should be adjusted against the current demand for the foot over bridge contract, including GST. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the advance license fee paid for the bus shelter contract, which was allegedly not acted upon, should be adjusted against the current demand. They also argued that GST was wrongly levied on the current demand. The petitioner relied on the principle of adjusting pre-paid amounts against subsequent liabilities. Respondent's arguments: The NOIDA Authority did not contest the adjustment of any outstanding amount from the earlier contract. They suggested that the petitioner file a fresh, detailed representation with all deposit particulars. The respondent did not explicitly argue against the adjustment of the advance license fee or the applicability of GST, but rather proposed a procedural solution.