Ramesh. E vs. The District Collector
Held
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had acted on the representation of the third respondent, made the investment, and supplied the vehicles, with delivery not being in dispute. However, it also recognized that the interest of the revenue should not be compromised. The Court directed the third respondent to utilize the vehicles and ordered the fourth respondent (Director of Town Panchayat) to determine the true value of the vehicles. The fourth respondent was instructed to conduct an inquiry into the market value of the vehicles, not necessarily adhering to the audit objection, and to make payment to the petitioner based on the actual value plus a reasonable profit. The petitioner was to be associated with this inquiry. This exercise was to be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Facts
The petitioner, E. Ramesh, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to release an invoice bill amount of Rs. 7,47,900.00 for the purchase of two three-wheeler battery vehicles for the Solid Waste Management Scheme implemented by the third respondent. The third respondent had issued a tender, and the petitioner emerged as the lowest tenderer. A work order was issued on 25.05.2022, with the estimated value of the work at Rs. 7,60,000.00. The petitioner purchased the vehicles for Rs. 7,47,900.00, which included GST, and handed them over to the third respondent. The petitioner's grievance was that the bill amount had not been settled. The respondents contended that due to audit objections, the claim could not be accepted, alleging that the value of the vehicles had been inflated.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the invoice bill amount of Rs. 7,47,900.00 for the supply of two three-wheeler battery vehicles, considering the respondents' objection regarding inflated value due to audit objections? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner acted on the representation of the third respondent, made the investment, supplied the vehicles, and the delivery is not in dispute. Therefore, the bill amount should be settled. Respondents' contention: Due to audit objections, the petitioner's claim could not be accepted as the value of the vehicles was allegedly inflated. The interest of the revenue cannot be compromised.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.07.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN E.Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Assistant Director, Tirunelveli Zonal Panchayat Office, Tirunelveli-627 007. 3.The Executive Officer, Selected Grade Town Panchayat, Naranammalpuram, Muthaiah Nagar, Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli District-627 357. 4.The Director of Town Panchayat, Chennai. (R4 is suo motu impleaded by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2024) ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's invoice bill amount of Rs.7,47,900.00/- for purchasing two Three Wheeler Battery Vehicle for implementing Solid Waste Management Scheme by the 3rd respondent and to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 01.08.2022. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioner : Mr.V.Muthukamatchi For Respondents : Mr.D.S
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 Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.