Stalin .P.S vs. The Principal Secretary
Facts
The petitioner, P.S. Stalin, a Registered Class I Contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 (Government departments) to disburse service tax, interest, and penalty amounts for services rendered between 2015 and 2017. The petitioner had carried out works contracts for the Public Works Department during this period. A previous Division Bench ruling had held the petitioner liable to pay service tax, but granted liberty to collect the tax from the Government and remit it to the department. The petitioner contended that despite several representations, the Government had not considered his claim for paying the tax. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner's claim was under consideration.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the first respondent (The Principal Secretary, Public Works Department) to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court acknowledged the submission by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the petitioner's claim was under consideration. The operative direction is to consider and pass orders, implying a procedural direction rather than a final determination on the merits of the disbursement itself. The issue of whether the petitioner is ultimately entitled to the full amount claimed, or the exact quantum, was not decided, but the process for consideration was mandated.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the service tax, interest, and penalty amount for services rendered between 2015 and 2017, based on his representation dated 26.07.2023? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is entitled to the disbursement of service tax, interest, and penalty for the services rendered, as per a previous court order that allowed him to collect the tax from the Government. He contended that the Government has failed to consider his claim despite multiple representations. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 submitted that the claim of the petitioner is under consideration by the first respondent.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.08.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY P.S.Stalin
... Petitioner Vs.
The Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3.The Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, 4th and 5th Floor, Panagal Maaligai, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. 4.The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Assitant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, D.No.68, Nehruji Nagar, R.M.Colony Road, Dindigul-624 001. ... Respondents 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the Service Tax, interest and penalty amount to the petitioner for the services rendered by him for the period from 2015 to 2017 based on the petitioner's repre
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.