Vetrivel.I vs. The Superintending Engineer

Facts

The petitioner, I. Vetrivel, a registered contractor with the National Highways Department (respondent), filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus. The petitioner sought directions for the respondent to consider representations dated June 23, 2022, and December 2, 2022. These representations concerned the grant of GST components along with interest, applying a formula prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.296 dated October 9, 2017, issued by the Finance (Salaries) Department. The petitioner had executed a contract prior to GST introduction, but for subsequent maintenance and repair works, GST was applicable. The petitioner contended that the Government ought to pay the tax, referencing the aforementioned G.O. which clarified the position.

Held

The Court held that it was not going into the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 23.06.2022 and 02.12.2022. This consideration was to be done specifically in light of G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 09.10.2017, issued by the Finance (Salaries) Department. The Court mandated that this consideration should be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must consider representations filed by contractors concerning financial claims, especially when supported by government orders clarifying tax liabilities, within a stipulated timeframe. The operative direction was to consider the representations within eight weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent, the Superintendenting Engineer, National Highways Circle, Madurai, is mandated to consider the petitioner's representations dated 23.06.2022 and 02.12.2022 seeking the grant of GST components along with interest, in light of G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 09.10.2017? (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent should consider their representations for the grant of GST components and interest, as per the formula prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 09.10.2017. The petitioner highlighted that while the original contract predated GST, subsequent maintenance and repair works fell under the GST regime, and the Government was liable to pay the tax, as clarified by the G.O. Respondent's contention: The judgment records no specific argument or contention from the respondent. The respondent was represented by a Special Government Pleader, but their submissions are not detailed in the provided text.