M/S M.S Buildcon Through Partner Shri Mohhamad Shakir vs. The Managing Director

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition without delving into the merits of the petitioner's claim. It directed that if the petitioner makes a fresh representation within 15 days from the date of the order, along with a copy of the order, to respondents No. 1 to 7, the same shall be considered and decided. The competent authority is to decide the claim for the balance amount of GST. If the amount claimed is undisputed and due, it shall be released. Alternatively, if there is any legal impediment to releasing the amount, a speaking order assigning reasons for declining the claim must be passed within 30 days from the receipt of the representation. The Court did not decide on the specific entitlement to the withheld amount, leaving that to the competent authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s M.S Buildcon, through its partner Shri Mohhamad Shakir, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner's grievance was that out of a total GST liability of Rs. 4,66,82,517/- which was deposited, only Rs. 3,11,21,677/- was released. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,55,60,840/- was allegedly withheld by the respondents. The petitioner had previously made a representation through a legal notice dated 29.11.2024 for the release of the balance amount, but it was unsuccessful. The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, had no objection to the petition being disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the claim for the release of the balance amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the withheld GST amount of Rs. 1,55,60,840/-, and if so, what is the procedure for its release? The petitioner argued that they had deposited the entire GST liability, and a significant portion of the deposited amount was being unduly withheld, causing financial prejudice. They sought the release of the balance amount. The respondents, through the Government Advocate, did not contest the petitioner's claim on merits but agreed to a direction for the competent authority to decide the matter. No specific statutory provisions or precedents were cited by either party in the judgment.