Shanmugam. P vs. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

Facts

Two writ petitions were filed by contractors, P. Shanmugam and Rajasekaran, against the Government of Tamil Nadu and its Public Works Department officials, along with the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise. The petitioners sought a writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 5 (Government and PWD officials) to disburse service tax, interest, and penalty amounts for services rendered between 2015-2017 (for P. Shanmugam) and 2014-2017 (for Rajasekaran). The petitioners had previously been held liable to pay service tax by a Division Bench of the High Court, which granted them liberty to collect the tax from the Government and pay it to the department. The current petitions alleged that the Government was not considering their claims despite multiple representations.

Held

The Court directed the 1st respondent (Government of Tamil Nadu) in both writ petitions to consider the cases of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court acknowledged the submission by the Special Government Pleader that the claim was under consideration. The Court did not delve into the merits of the service tax, interest, or penalty amounts themselves but focused on directing the administrative authority to process the petitioners' claims. The ratio decidendi is that when a claim for disbursement of amounts, previously determined to be payable by the government to a contractor, is pending consideration despite representations, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the concerned authority to consider and pass orders within a stipulated time. The petitions were allowed with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents 1 to 5 (Government of Tamil Nadu and Public Works Department officials) are liable to disburse the service tax, interest, and penalty amounts to the petitioners for services rendered between 2014-2017, as per their representations and the 5th respondent's letter. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they had rendered services for the specified periods and were directed by a previous High Court order to pay service tax, with liberty to recover it from the Government. They contended that despite their representations and the 5th respondent's communication, the Government had failed to disburse the amounts, necessitating the present writ petitions for a Mandamus. Revenue/State's Arguments: The Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the claim of the petitioner was under consideration by the relevant authorities. No specific arguments were recorded for the 6th respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise).