Jyothi Enterprises v. Union Of India

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 233 of 2020 Jyothi Enterprises Proprietor Rajesh Kumar Sharma, S/o R.R.N. Sharma, Aged About Year Through General Power Of Attorney Holder Ramashankar Tiwari S/o Late G.P. Tiwari, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Chandni Chowk, Shankarpur, Parsudih, Post Office Tata Nagar, Police Station Parsudih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singh Bhum, State Of Jharkhand.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Railway, 256-A, Raisina Road, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.

2. Divisional Railway Manager South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (O.P.) South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Senior Divisional Finance Manager South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For respective Respondents :

Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 20/01/2020

1. The limited relief that the petitioner has sought for at this juncture is for an appropriate direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation, so far as the claim of GST is concerned.

2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the levy of GST was not reflected in the tender documents and therefore the petitioner has not quoted his price taking that into consideration. Now, if the petitioner at this juncture has to pay GST, he would be put to irreparable loss. According to the petitioner, he has made a couple of

representations to the respondents to consider his claim, which till date is pending consideration before the authorities.

3. Given the said facts, let the respondents No.2 to 4 consider the claim of the petitioner, so far as demand for GST is concerned, at the earliest preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so far as the relief sought for by the petitioner.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved