Meenakshi Sundaram.S vs. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

Facts

The petitioners, registered Class I Contractors with the Public Works Department, Tamil Nadu, performed works contract services between 2015 and 2017. A Division Bench of the High Court had previously ruled that the petitioners were liable to pay service tax for these services, but granted them liberty to collect the tax from the Government and remit it to the department. The petitioners allege that despite several representations, the Government has not considered their claim for disbursement of the service tax, interest, and penalty amounts. They have filed these writ petitions seeking a Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 5 (Public Works Department authorities) to disburse these amounts based on their representation dated 18.07.2023.

Held

The Court held that the claim of the petitioners is under consideration by the first respondent. The Court found it appropriate for the concerned authority to consider and pass orders on the petitioners' claim. Therefore, the first respondent (The Government of Tamil Nadu) was directed to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court allowed the writ petitions with no costs. The specific issue of whether the petitioners are entitled to the disbursement of service tax, interest, and penalty was not definitively decided on merits but was remitted for consideration by the appropriate authority as per the previous Division Bench's liberty.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Public Works Department (respondents 1 to 5) is obligated to disburse the service tax, interest, and penalty amounts to the petitioners for the period 2015-2017, as per the liberty granted by a previous Division Bench order, and based on the petitioners' representation dated 18.07.2023? (Question of law and fact, concerning the implementation of a court order and contractual obligations). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contend that the Government ought to consider their claim and disburse the service tax, interest, and penalty amounts. They rely on the liberty granted by a previous Division Bench order which allowed them to collect the tax from the Government. They have made several representations, but their claims remain unaddressed. Revenue/State's Argument: The Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the claim of the petitioners is under consideration. No specific statutory provisions or precedents were cited by either side in the judgment.