S.Thamarai Manavalan vs. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

Facts

The petitioner, S. Thamarai Manavalan, a Registered Class I Contractor with the Public Works Department, seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 (Government of Tamil Nadu and its officials) to disburse service tax, interest, and penalty amounts for services rendered between 2015 and 2017. The petitioner had previously been held liable to pay service tax for this period by a Division Bench of the High Court, which granted liberty to collect the tax from the Government. The petitioner claims the Government has not considered his representations for disbursement of these amounts. The learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5 stated that the petitioner's claim is under consideration.

Held

The Court held that the first respondent ought to consider the case of the petitioner. The learned Special Government Pleader for the official respondents submitted that the claim is under consideration. Therefore, the Court was of the considered opinion that the appropriate authority should consider and pass orders. The first respondent was directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the service tax, interest, and penalty amounts themselves but focused on directing the authority to consider the petitioner's claim. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must consider claims diligently and pass reasoned orders within a reasonable time, especially when a prior judicial pronouncement has granted liberty to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 to disburse the service tax, interest, and penalty amounts for the period 2015-2017, based on his representation dated 18.08.2023? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that as per the liberty granted by a previous Division Bench order, he is entitled to collect the service tax from the Government and pay it to the department. He contends that despite his representations, the Government has failed to consider and disburse these amounts, necessitating judicial intervention. Respondents' contention: The respondents 1 to 5, through the Special Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioner's claim is currently under consideration. No specific arguments were recorded for respondent 6 (Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise).