Ms Goyal Paper Udyog Through One Of Its Partner Sri Krishna Murari Agrawal vs. The State Of Jharkhand

WPC/1460/2020HC JharkhandGSTCNR JHHC01010545202002 November 2020Bench: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Goyal Paper Udyog, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the release of Rs. 4,25,426/- withheld by the respondents. The petitioner was awarded a work order for Rs. 9,89,502/- for supplying training modules, posters, and folders for academic session 2017-18. Subsequently, an additional work order was issued for progress report cards amounting to Rs. 3,80,537/- (exclusive of GST). The petitioner claims to have completed the supply within the stipulated time and raised bills. Despite several representations and a complaint registered with the Jansamvad Kendra, the payment was not released. The respondent No. 4 acknowledged that Rs. 4,25,426/- remained unpaid to the petitioner.

Held

The Court, without entering into the merits of the case, held that the bill raised by the petitioner subsequent to the issuance of the additional work order requires consideration by an appropriate authority. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to prefer a fresh representation regarding their claim before Respondent No. 3. Upon receipt of this representation, Respondent No. 3 is directed to provide a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's representative and take an appropriate informed decision within a period of three months from the date of filing the representation. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment for the supplies made under an additional work order, and if so, under what authority of law? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contends that they were selected as a supplier by the District Purchase Committee and had received a work order. They further supplied progress report cards based on an additional work order and fulfilled their contractual obligations. The withholding of payment is therefore unjustified. Revenue/State's argument: Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 argued that the petitioner raised bills for the amount in question beyond the contractual terms, which is why the payment has not been made.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 1460 of 2020

M/s Goyal Paper Udyog, Jamshedpur, through one of its partners Sri Krishna Murari Agrawal

….. Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Jharkhand

2.

The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

3.

The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi

4.

The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum

….. Respondents

-----

CORAM

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

----- For the Petitioner:

Ms. Vishakha Gupta For the State:

Mr. Anish Mishra, A.C to G.A-I For Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: Mr. Krishna Murari

-----

04/02.11.2020 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to show cause as to why and under what authority of law the petitioner’s bill/claim for an amount of Rs.4,25,426/- for supply of progress report cards, training module, pos

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.

See plans and prices

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 Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.