M/S Tomar Builders And Contractors PVT. LTD. Through Its Director And Authorised Signatory Pratap Si vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court, without commenting on the merits of the claim, disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The Court held that if the petitioner makes a fresh representation within 15 days of the order, along with a copy of the order, to Respondent No. 2 (the Competent Authority), the same shall be considered and decided concerning the balance amount of GST. If the claimed amount is undisputed and due, it shall be released. Alternatively, if there is any legal impediment to releasing the amount, the Competent Authority must pass a speaking order assigning reasons for declining the claim within 30 days of receiving the representation. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must address claims diligently and provide reasoned orders when denying them, especially when a substantial amount is withheld despite claimed full deposit.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Tomar Builders and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior. The petitioner's grievance was that out of a total GST liability of Rs. 58,24,99,517.00, which was duly deposited, an amount of Rs. 6,66,20,246.46 remained withheld by the authorities. The petitioner had made a representation and sent a legal notice dated 21/10/2024 for the release of this balance amount, but it remained unaddressed. The State, through its learned 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 balance amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the withheld GST amount of Rs. 6,66,20,246.46, considering the total liability was deposited? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had deposited the entire GST liability, and the withholding of a significant portion of the deposited amount was unjustified. They relied on their representation and legal notice to highlight their claim for the release of the balance. Revenue/State's contention: The State did not contest the merits of the petitioner's claim. Instead, they agreed to a disposal of the petition with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide the matter. No specific provisions, circulars, or precedents were cited by either party in the judgment.