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 disposed of the writ petition without commenting on the merits of the petitioner's claim. The Court 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 Respondent No. 2 (the Competent Authority), the same shall be considered and decided. If the amount claimed by the petitioner is undisputed and due, it shall be released. Alternatively, if there is any legal impediment to the release of the amount, the Competent Authority shall pass a speaking order assigning reasons for declining the claim within 30 days from the receipt of the representation. The ratio of this judgment is that in cases of alleged undue withholding of deposited tax amounts, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the concerned authority to adjudicate the claim expeditiously, either by releasing the undisputed amount or by passing a reasoned order if there are legal impediments.

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. 1,13,85,82,908.76, which was deposited, only Rs. 1,01,33,01,963.04 had been released. The remaining amount of Rs. 12,52,80,947/- was allegedly being withheld. The petitioner had made a representation through a Legal Notice dated 21/10/2024 for the release of the balance amount, but it remained unaddressed. The State, through the Government Advocate, had no objection to the petition being disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide the claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the withheld GST amount of Rs. 12,52,80,947/-, considering that the total GST liability of Rs. 1,13,85,82,908.76 was deposited? 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 without justification was causing prejudice. They relied on their representation and legal notice to highlight the lack of action from the authorities. Revenue/State's contention: The State, through the Government Advocate, did not contest the merits of the petitioner's claim. They agreed to the disposal of the petition with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide the matter, indicating no specific arguments against the release of the amount at this stage.