Gopalakrishnan. V vs. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

Facts

The petitioner, a Registered Class I Contractor with the Public Works Department, performed works contract services for the department between 2015 and 2017. A Division Bench of the High Court had previously ruled that the petitioner was liable to pay service tax. The Court had also granted liberty to the petitioner to collect the tax from the Government and remit it to the department. The petitioner filed these writ petitions seeking a mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 (Public Works Department officials) to disburse the service tax, interest, and penalty waiver for the services rendered, based on a representation dated June 16, 2023. The petitioner contended that the Government was not considering their claim for payment despite several representations. The Special Government Pleader stated that the petitioner's claim was under consideration.

Held

The Court held that the appropriate authority ought to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's claim. The 1st respondent in most of the writ petitions (W.P.(MD)Nos.16832 to 16834 and 16836 to 16840 of 2023) was directed to consider the case of the respective petitioners and pass orders within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Similarly, the 6th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.16835 of 2023 was also directed to consider the petitioner's case and pass orders within the same timeframe. The Court found that the claim was under consideration, necessitating a directive for timely disposal. The ratio decidendi is that when a claim is under consideration and a party has sought relief through a representation, the concerned authorities should be directed to pass orders within a stipulated period. The writ petitions were allowed with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents 1 to 5 are to be directed to disburse the service tax, interest, and penalty waiver to the petitioner for the services rendered between 2015 and 2017, as per the petitioner's representation dated June 16, 2023? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the disbursement of service tax, interest, and penalty waiver for services rendered, and that the government authorities (respondents 1-5) have failed to consider their claim despite multiple representations. They sought a direction from the Court for the disbursement. Revenue/State's Argument: The Special Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the claim of the petitioner is under consideration by the department. No specific legal arguments were presented by the revenue/state, but rather a statement regarding the status of the petitioner's claim.