R.Subramaniam v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
M. SUNDAR,J.
Captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petition' ['WMP' for the sake of brevity] has been taken out by writ petitioner in the main 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of brevity]. Though the prayer is for modification, it comes to light that a typographical error has crept in qua paragraph No.4 of order dated 13.12.2022 whereby WP No. 33436 of 2022 was disposed of. This 13.12.2022 order reads as follows:
'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.12.2022 CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.No.33436 of 2022 1\10
R.Subramaniam S/o.Ramasamy No.103, Nallappa Nagar, Mahalingapuram Pollachi - 642 002.
.. Petitioner Vs.
1.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Commissioner Pollachi Municipality Pollachi - 642 001.
3.
The Jurisdictional Officer Commercial Tax Officer Pollachi East, Pollachi - 642 001.
4.
The Superintendent of GST Head Quarters Preventive Unit Race Course Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.
..
2\10
Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to reimburse the CGST and SGST (Rs.36,10,385/- + 36,10,385/- respectively) total amount of Rs.72,20,770/- paid by the petitioner for and on behalf of the 2nd respondent with interest at 18% rate of interest from the respective bills passed date as indicated in the chart filed in the typed set till date of payment within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court by considering the representation dated 07.11.2022 made by the petitioner. For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Sivaji For Respondents :
Mr.S.Ravikumar Special Government Pleader for R1 Mr.B.Ananad for R2 Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for R3 Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil Senior Panel Counsel for Customs and Indirect Tax for R4 *****
O R D E R
Captioned writ petition pertains to tenders floated by second respondent Municipality for construction of pavements, sheds and other 3\10
public utilities on 27.02.2015, 30.11.2015 and 02.03.2016. Writ petitioner participated in the tender process, became successful and agreements were entered into. It may not be necessary to delve into more facts and be detained by factual particulars in the light of submission of Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner (in the hearing) that he abridges the prayer in the writ petition and it would suffice if there is a directive to the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner dated 07.11.2022 (Page Nos.89 to 92 of typed set of papers).
2. Mr.S.Ravikumar, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for first respondent. Mr.B.Anand, learned counsel accepts notice for second respondent. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) accepts notice for third respondent. Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Customs and Indirect Tax accepts notice for fourth respondent.
3. As of now, owing to the abridged prayer, the issue is only as between the writ petitioner and second respondent namely, the employer and the contractor qua tenders and agreements.
4. As already alluded to supra, it is not necessary to delve into facts and it will suffice to say that it is a case of the contractor/writ petitioner that tenders were prior to 01.07.2017 before the GST regime kicked in and therefore, GST incurred by the contractor has to be absorbed by the contractor.
4\10
5. Aforementioned representation dated 07.11.2022 as placed before this Court is as follows:
5\10
6\10
7\10
6. In the light of the abridged prayer, captioned Writ Petition is disposed of with a simple directive to the second respondent to dispose of the aforementioned representation of writ petitioner dated 07.11.2022 on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as the official business of the second respondent would permit and in any event, within a fortnight from today i.e., by 27.12.2022. The disposal proceedings of the second respondent shall be communicated to the writ petitioner under due acknowledgment within three working days therefrom.
8\10
7. Though obvious, it is made clear that there is no expression of view or opinion in this order and the second respondent shall dispose of the aforementioned representation on its own merits and in accordance with law. Captioned Writ Petition disposed of with the aforesaid directive. There shall be no order as to costs.' 2.
Mr.M.
Jaisingh for the WMP petitioner;
Mr.P. Balathandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader for 1st respondent, who also represented Mr.B. Anand, learned counsel for 2nd respondent; Mr.T.N.C. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) for 3rd respondent and Ms.S. Lydia Steffi, learned counsel representing Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Senior Panel Counel for 4th respondent are before this Court.
3.
The inadvertent typographical/secretarial error is, in the last line of pargraph No.4 the last word 'contractor' should read as employer. Therefore, paragrah No.4 of aforementioned order dated 13.12.2022 in WP No.33436 of 2022 will now read as follows:
'4.
As already alluded to supra, it is not necessary to delve into facts and it will suffice to say that it is a case of the 9\10
M. SUNDAR,J.
nv contractor/writ petitioner that tenders were prior to 01.07.2017 before the GST regime kicked in and therefore, GST incurred by the contractor has to be absorbed by the employer.' 4.
All the counsel for respondents i.e., all the counsel for all four respondents submit that the prayer is innocuous, the matter is one of inadvertent secretarial error and therefore, they are neither objecting nor opposing the request of WMP petitioner.
5.
In all other aspects, 13.12.2022 order in WP No. 33436 of 2022 will remain the same.
6.
Captioned WMP is ordered in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.
23.07.2024 nv 10\10