M/S Goutam Gouri Construction Comp. Thr. Its Proprietor Akhilesh Sharma vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court held that it cannot entertain the dispute in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court reasoned that the matter involves disputed questions of fact, which are not suitable for determination in a writ petition. Furthermore, the Court noted the significant delay in filing the petition, approximately three years after the contract award and two years after work completion, without sufficient explanation for the steps taken for grievance redressal during this period. The Court also observed that such contracts typically contain clauses for alternative dispute resolution. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue other available legal remedies as per the terms of the contract and in accordance with law. Any such proceedings initiated by the petitioner would be considered on their merits, including the point of limitation. The Court declined admission and dismissed the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Gautam Gouri Construction Company, was awarded a contract by the State of M.P. and its authorities for construction work amounting to Rs. 3,03,03,998.70, with actual work done valued at Rs. 2,24,68,665/-. The work was completed and payment made. However, with the introduction of GST on July 1, 2017, the petitioner incurred additional expenses of Rs. 24,02,252/- towards GST at 12% on Rs. 2,00,18,772/-. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the respondents to pay this additional GST amount, along with 12% interest, and to decide their application for such payment. The contract was awarded on March 28, 2017, and work was likely completed by March 2018. The petition was filed approximately three years after the contract award and two years after work completion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can entertain a dispute concerning the recovery of additional GST expenses incurred by a contractor, given the existence of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and disputed questions of fact? (Section 226 of the Constitution of India). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they incurred additional expenses due to the implementation of GST and sought a direction for the respondents to make these payments, along with interest. They sought the court's intervention to direct the respondents to decide their application for this payment. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents contended that prima facie, disputed questions of fact exist in the case, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. They also highlighted that the petition was filed after a significant delay.