Hakim Singh Builders And Contractors PVT LTD Gwalior Through Its Authorised Signatory Raghvendra Tom vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Held
The Court, without commenting on the merits of the petitioner's claim, disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. If the petitioner submitted a fresh representation within 15 days of the order, along with a copy of the order, to Respondent No. 2, this representation would be considered and decided concerning the payment of the GST amount. The Court further directed that if the claimed amount was undisputed and due, it should be released. Alternatively, if there was any legal impediment to releasing the amount, a speaking order assigning reasons for declining the claim must be passed within 30 days of receiving the representation. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Hakim Singh Builders and Contractors Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior. The petitioner's grievance was that the respondents were not releasing the full Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount that the petitioner had duly deposited. The petitioner had also made representations to the respondents for the release of this amount, but these were unsuccessful. The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, 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 GST amount.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents are obligated to release the full GST amount deposited by the petitioner, as per the relevant provisions of the GST law? The petitioner argued that they had duly deposited the GST amount and were seeking its release, having made prior unsuccessful representations. The petitioner contended that the respondents were withholding the full amount without justification. The State, through the Additional Advocate General, did not contest the petitioner's claim on merits and agreed to a direction for the Competent Authority to decide the matter. No specific provisions of the GST Act or Rules were explicitly argued by either side, nor were any precedents cited in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Per: Justice Anand Pathak
In the present petition preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India, short grievance of petitioner is that respondents are not making the payment of full GST amount which was duly deposited by him and for the release of which petitioner preferred representation also before the respondents but to no avail.
Learned Government Advocate for State has no objection if the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide the said claim for release of the GST amount.
Consequently, without commenting upon the merits of the claim, this Court disposes of this petition with the following directions:- 1 WP-36637-2025 NEUTRAL CITAT
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.
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 Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.