Bhupinder Paul Mahajan vs. State Of Hp And Ors
Held
The Court noted that a significant number of GST reimbursement claims, both for construction and maintenance, had already been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel conceded that the remaining outstanding amount of Rs. 1,63,150/- had been sent to the treasury by the State. Based on this concession and the assurance from the State, the Court closed the proceedings. The State assured the Court that it would ensure the payment of the balance amount within two weeks from the date of the order. The ratio of this decision is that where a petitioner concedes that the disputed amount has been remitted to the treasury and the State assures timely payment, the High Court may close proceedings with such an assurance.
Facts
The petitioner, Bhupinder Paul Mahajan, filed an Ex. Petition seeking payment of outstanding GST reimbursement claims. The State of Himachal Pradesh and other respondents were parties to the petition. As per a communication dated 18.09.2025, 31 GST reimbursement claims related to construction and 22 claims for maintenance had been paid to the petitioner. The total amount paid for construction was Rs. 7,08,47,819/-, and for maintenance was Rs. 49,67,723/-. The petitioner's counsel stated that an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,63,150/- remained, but conceded that this amount had been sent to the treasury by the State.
Key Issues
1. Whether the outstanding GST reimbursement claims of the petitioner have been fully settled, and if not, what is the remaining amount and the timeline for its payment? This issue turns on the interpretation and application of the relevant GST reimbursement procedures and contractual obligations between the petitioner and the State. The petitioner argued that an amount of Rs. 1,63,150/- was still outstanding. The revenue (State) did not explicitly argue on this point but indicated that the amount had been sent to the treasury. The Court's decision was based on the communication and the concession made by the petitioner's counsel.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Bhupinder Paul Mahajan versus State of H.P. and others
Ex. Petition No. 647 of 2024
Item No.D-11
2025 Present: Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents N. 1& 4 to 15. Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondents No. 2 and 3. As per communication dated 18.09.2025, 31 number of GST reimbursement claims with respect to construction part and another 22 number of claims for maintenance have been paid to the petitioner.
Perusal of the list would go on to show that for construction a sum of Rs.7,08,47,819/- has been paid and for maintenance part a sum of Rs.49,67,723/- has been paid.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that an outstanding amount of Rs.1,63,150/- is there but concedes’ that it has been sent to the treasury by the State.
Resultantly, we close the proceedings with an assurance from the State that it shall ensure the payment of balance amount within two weeks from today.
(G.S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice
[
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 Himachal Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.