Jawahar vs. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

Facts

The petitioners, who are Registered Class I Contractors with the Public Works Department, filed writ petitions seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to disburse service tax, interest, and penalty amounts for services rendered between 2015 and 2017. The petitioners had previously been held liable to pay service tax by a Division Bench of the High Court, which also granted them liberty to collect the tax from the Government. The petitioners contended that the Government was not considering their claims for payment of this tax despite multiple representations. The respondents include various officials from the Public Works Department and the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petitions. It directed the first respondent, the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, to consider the petitioners' case and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court's reasoning was based on the petitioners' prior liability for service tax, as determined by a Division Bench, and the liberty granted to them to collect such tax from the Government. The petitioners' grievance was that the Government had not acted upon their claims despite their representations. Therefore, the Court issued a direction to the Government to consider and decide these claims within a specified timeframe. The operative direction is for the Government to consider the petitioners' case and pass orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse service tax, interest, and penalty to the petitioners for services rendered between 2015 and 2017, based on their representations (Article 226 of the Constitution of India)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they are entitled to the disbursement of service tax, interest, and penalty for the work done between 2015 and 2017. They relied on a previous Division Bench order which held them liable for service tax but granted liberty to collect it from the Government. They asserted that despite their representations, the Government had failed to process their claims, necessitating judicial intervention. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents regarding their stance on the disbursement of the amounts. The focus appears to be on the petitioners' claim and the court's direction.