S.P.Constructions vs. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

Facts

The petitioner, S.P.Constructions, a Registered Class I Contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 11 (Government of Tamil Nadu departments and their officials) 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 it from the Government. The petitioner contended that despite several representations, the Government had not considered their claim for paying the tax. The respondents, through the Learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioner's claim was under consideration.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition by issuing a direction to the first respondent (The Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department) to consider the case of the petitioner 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 petitioner's claim for disbursement of service tax, interest, and penalty for services rendered between 2015 and 2017. It noted that a previous Division Bench ruling had established the petitioner's liability to pay service tax but had also granted liberty to collect the tax from the Government. The Court found merit in the petitioner's grievance that their claim had not been adequately addressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Learned Additional Government Pleader that the claim was under consideration. The ratio decidendi is that when a government department is responsible for disbursing amounts related to tax liability, and the claim has been pending consideration, the High Court can direct the concerned authority to expedite the decision-making process within a stipulated timeframe. The operative direction was to consider and pass orders within twelve weeks. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 11 to disburse service tax, interest, and penalty amounts for services rendered between 2015 and 2017, based on their representation dated 26.07.2023? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the disbursement of service tax, interest, and penalty amounts for the services rendered during the period 2015-2017. They relied on a previous ruling by a Division Bench of this Court which, while holding them liable to pay service tax, granted them liberty to collect the tax from the Government. The petitioner asserted that the Government had failed to consider their claim despite multiple representations, necessitating judicial intervention. Revenue/State's Arguments: The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the claim of the petitioner was under consideration by the first respondent. No specific provisions of law or precedents were cited by the respondents.